Well, well, well. The Neo-conservative/Zionist hegemony not coming together like you planned Mr. President. It ain't coming together in Afghanistan either. Seems like you could have learned from Russia's miserable failure in Afghanistan that determined insurgencies are impossible to put down by outside forces. Of course, now, instead of a secular dictator in Iraq, now you have the increasingly likely outcome of a Shiite Islamic Republic in Iraq. Good Job.

As we approach the time when Libertarian Presidential candidates start coming out of the woodwork in preparation for 2008, I think the base membership of the party needs to make clear to the leadership, that we will not tolerate nomination of any candidate who will not vigorously fight the Neo-conservative mob in Washington, D.C. and will not commit him/herself to putting the United States back on the path envisioned by George Washington of "No foreign entanglements." Let's have a Libertarian candidate who's first act, perhaps while still at the inauguration platform will be to sign an executive order immediately withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and everywhere else in the world. I would dare say they should turn to the ex-President on the inauguration platform and place him and the rest of his administration under arrest for the many warcrimes and abuse of his power as President.

The Green Party has taken a very strong stance on this subject and we cannot allow the Libertarian Party to be preempted in this area. We need to take an equally tough, if not tougher stand.

An immediate pullout would be disastrous. It's nice to think that we can just bring everyone home and it'll all be nice and flowery, but that's not realistic. The principled thing, of course, is to do as you said: get back to Washington's message of steering clear of entangling alliances, and then to Jefferson's vision of a federal government only concerned with defense, not offense. But unfortunately the mess we're in right now demands some concessions on our part in order to achieve the ultimate goal. In other words, we're gonna have to accept an "ends justify the means" path.

It's short, it's sweet, and it's much better than I can say it, so I'll just put this here: http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

The goal is to bring our troops home, but it can't happen overnight. It's not feasible, and it would be disastrous not only for our soldiers but for America's reputation (what's left of it) in the world. That alone would put us in a position far worse than what we're in now (imagine that...)

Marcus Brutus says, "An immediate pullout would be disastrous."

More disastrous than staying there? If we let the casualty numbers pile up much longer, you may have a hard time selling that argument.

Brutus also gets to what I believe is the heart of the matter: "The goal ... to bring our troops home ... can't happen overnight. It's not feasible, and it would be disastrous ... for America's reputation (what's left of it) in the world."

The neocons keep appealing to Americans' infatuation with being "the world's remaining superpower." In other words, they are playing to our sense of vanity and our power lust. If we cared about what happened to the Iraqis, we would not have pursued policies (including the invasion and occupation) which have resulted in tens of thousands of civillians -- men, women, and children -- dead. If we cared about our soldiers, we wouldn't have committed them so completely with no idea of what "victory" was or how long it would realistically take to attain. No, we seem to care about how the US looks in the world, whether we can command love -- if not love, respect -- if not respect, fear -- in the world if we (in the neocon's words) opt to "cut and run."

We need to remember another bit of Washington's wisdom: Washington was in the position to be a virtual King of America. He turned that down and accepted the much more humble and limited position of President. He could have run for additional terms, but he voluntarily accepted his own, self-imposed term limits, going back to his beloved farm after two terms at the top.

Any nation that has tried to retain the spotlight on the world stage through imperial tactics has fallen, or at very least imploded into a shadow of its former self, never to reclaim past glory. The neocon project has taken us a long way down that self-destructive path, largely on the basis of our shared delusion that the US has and deserves to be the last remaining, ruling superpower, and that we must avoid anything which tarnishes the corresponding image that we must cultivate and maintain at all costs.

Maybe we are the last remaining superpower. Maybe we deserved our time in the limelight. Maybe our time in the limelight isn't even over. But it is folly for a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people to attempt to rule the world or to actively remake it in its own image. If we could put our national vanity aside for a little bit, we might be able to focus, once again, on crafting and pursing domestic and foreign policies that truly promote our national interests: the liberty, security, and prosperity of EVERY AMERICAN. As it is, as I see it, we are being led along by the nose ring of national vanity. Let's try to remember and live by Washington's example: ascend to power, do what good you can, repair what mistakes you must, and then leave, even if the next guy has further cleanup to do. What was good for Washington (the President), is equally good for Washington (the seat of power and those in it).

I hope Libertarian candidates can help accelerate the retirement of our current rulers in this election and the next, in honor of President Washington's own humility.

truelibertarian:

I agree with you totally.

These neo-con adventures are rapidly bringing down this country, by saddling us with out of control debt. We will find, just as the Romans did, that this game cannot go on forever. In any event, the debt will bring down the economy and the United States will cease to be a superpower.

MarcusBrutus:

If I thought we could stay a little bit longer, and withdraw with dignity or withdraw and save face, I would advocate that. But I know that is not the case. I think the sooner we leave, the better it will be. The current regime will not survive our departure, whether we leave now or five years from now. Our best move is immediate withdrawal.

The arrest of the previous administration by an incoming Libertarian President WOULD gain the U.S. at least a measure of respect from the rest of the world. It would show that somebody still respects the rule of law in the U.S. I would fully support a Libertarian President directing the Department of Justice to take the previous administration into custody and charge them with such crimes as may be appropriate. I would propose that charging the current President with violation of his oath of office would be a great start.

Let me clarify: I share the vision of bringing our troops home, and I want them home as soon as possible. Yes we are targets in Iraq right now, and will continue to be such as long as we are there. But there needs to be a PHASED withdrawal, not just an immediate total pullout.

We can look at the neocon vision for the world and say we aren't going to go down that line, and I think that is indeed the right course to take. But just because the neocons are obsessed with our role as the benevolent hegemon doesn't mean that we, as their opponents, have to ignore our standing in global affairs. If tomorrow we began some massive pullout from Iraq, not only would the Iraqis hate us for ruining their country, but the Muslim world would continue to hate us for creating a civil war in Islamic lands. Such an event would play right into their ideas of America serving as part of a grand Zionist conspiracy.

I want the troops home, and I think the neocon vision of "stay the course" should be a policy added to the ash heap of history at this point. Like the LP Iraq withdrawal says, it has to be a gradual thing, and we'll have to accept some redeployment to other areas (temporarily, of course.)

People who think like this aren't "brainwashed" by the neocon vision. I came to the LP from the Republican Party, and I was a card carrying neoconservative. But when I recognized that the foreign policy my party was advocating was rationally bankrupt, and dangerous for America, I chose to abandon it. Let's bring our troops home as quick as possible, but not through a process of ideology that ignores pragmatism: bringing every soldier home tomorrow would be wonderful in theory, but what we would have to deal with regarding our security after that would be disastrous in my opinion.

I could be wrong. Maybe we'll get a change of seats in Congress in the upcoming election and our senators and representatives will actually bring the troops home quickly, and maybe it will make us better off. I'll be happy to admit mistake when that happens. But I just don't see that course of events taking place.

Interesting discussion here. My take's somewhere in the middle. Libertarians should remind voters that we opposed the Iraq War, as our nation faced no imminent threat from Saddam.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to take the Green Party position of immediate pull out. I'm not persuaded that US involvement in establishing some semblance of civil society in Iraq is impossible, as "truelibertarian" seems to suggest. If immediate withdrawal COULD happen -- and it won't -- and that led to a widening and regional war, the US would be responsible for "letting that genie out of the bottle," as it were.

One of the upsides to not being in government is that we're not burdened with the minutiae. Libertarian candidates or the Party are under no obligation to spell out the gory details of how the US can tactfully extricate itself from this mess.

Why not stay above the fray a bit? Take a "No more Iraqs and Vietnams" tack. Express support for the troops. Implore the Rs and Ds to get us out of this mess as quickly as possible, and to not get the US further bogged down in the quagmire.

That's a good suggestion, but without any clear plan, no one is going to take us seriously. The Democrats have been the anti-Republican Party for about six years now, and we've all seen the electoral success they've enjoyed during that span.

Voters react to clear plans, not stiff opposition. The fact that the LP actually has an official withdrawal strategy is HUGE in my mind in showing voters not only that we're ideologically opposed, but that we understand the situation and its severity, and that we have a template to follow in achieving our goals. That separates us from, say, the Democratic Party, who keep railing on about "we need change" or "we need a different course" but offer nothing else. Unfortunately I think the Big Government Republicans might end up doing quite well in November if the current course of events continue. Even though it was dishonest, the Democrats seemed to have something going with the "culture of corruption" thing (Democrats, by the way, have taken more money per capita from lobbyists than Republicans). I think that fell through, however, because it was simply demonstrating something negative about the party in power.

With constructive ideas, and a willingness to discuss the minutiae, no candidate seeking a major shift of policy will be taken seriously, because it will appear he or she is just playing politics with the entire situation, using Bush's low approval numbers to boost his or her reputation via opposition to the President. Polls will show people want a different course, but when it comes to election day, people vote for those with ideas, not just ideology.

Marcus: That's a good suggestion, but without any clear plan, no one is going to take us seriously. The Democrats have been the anti-Republican Party for about six years now, and we've all seen the electoral success they've enjoyed during that span.

Bob: Well, perhaps. But generally the Rs and Ds don't have "plans" AS PARTIES. Their candidates and pols do. I happen to believe that the LP should be more like them in that sense. And, why would THE PARTY only have a "plan" on Iraq, and not, say, Social Security? We'd have to have LOTS of "plans," which is, frankly IMO, beyond the Party's limited resources at this time.

Marcus: Voters react to clear plans, not stiff opposition.

Bob: That's not my perception. Voters react to candidates and their perception of their character, first and foremost.

How could it be any worse? What a moron.

Those of you who advocate staying in for the sake of "pragmatism", "saving face" or "national pride" should immediately volunteer and replace the poor schmuck who will take a bullet or be wounded in some horrendous way while being "pragmatic" taking one for the Neo-cons. The common denominator of war is death. Not face saving or point making. REAL PEOPLE die in order to make brownie points for foreign "policy". If the cause is not just, you do not make it just by sacrificing more people. This was the Viet Nam endgame of the Nixon administration. We did not achieve "peace with honor", we achieved over half a million dead soldiers, countless thousands of others permanently injured and a badly divided nation.

At the end of that one I never dreamed we would make the same mistake twice in my lifetime, but here we are.

The powers that be (and I am not talking about just the Neo-cons) require perpetual warfare to keep the economic ball rolling and money in their pockets. They cynically apply Patriotic fervor to the American public by providing a convenient "enemy" and then engineer an atrocity or two firing them up (9/11. WMD's, Iranian Reactors "Remember the Maine!” the list is endless). Having no feeling of national pride themselves, they bankroll and supply arms to BOTH sides to keep the conflict drawn out and far more profitable. How do you suppose Hezbollah afforded all those rockets, bake sales??

Aren't you as sick as I am of this?

Here is a good article that relates well to the topic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis46.html

I do have a "plan" that I think Libertarians should follow.

1. Disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, as I mentioned earlier.

2. Greatly reduce the armed forces of the United States to a defensive only level.

3. Renounce all Treaties that pledge the United States to come to the aid of any country.

4. Remove the U.S. from NATO.

5. U.S. out of U.N. and U.N. out of U.S.

6. Establish free trade with the whole world whether or not they reciprocate. This includes North Korea, Cuba, Iran and other states of similar nature.

7. Our diplomacy should be limited ONLY to working to establish world wide free trade.

8. Use the money saved by above steps to increase human intelligence and to purchase machines for screening airports and seaports.

Want to see a good concept, or maybe too close to the truth, this is a good movie.

THIS IS MENT TO BE IN ABOVE POSTING.
THE MOVIE V FOR VENDETTA IS A MOVIE WORTH SEEING.

"...An immediate pullout would be disastrous..."

In what way would it be disastrous? What disasater would happen? Would we all die? Is it fatal to pull out at once? Would I catch the Bubonic Plague, dandruff? Would I go broke and starve to death at once? What, specifically, would be the disaster?

"...In other words, we're gonna have to accept an "ends justify the means" path..."

Evil never begets good. There is never a time to rationalize away moral truth for the sake of some pragmatic, ethereal 'good'. The "good' is right there in front of us, and we are going the other way.

"...The goal is to bring our troops home, but it can't happen overnight. It's not feasible, and it would be disastrous not only for our soldiers but for America's reputation (what's left of it) in the world..."

Well, it would be expensive, and I doubt we have enough planes to do it 'overnight' but 'immediate withdrawal' means stop fighting and begin retreating out THIS VERY SECOND. Go to a safe place and await departure. Do NOT continue agressive behavior, do NOT 'move forward'. hence, the argument 'it's not feasable' is simply a weak attempt to continue taking more shots at an enemy that doesn't need to be shot at.

One BIG question:

HOW would this be 'disastrous' not only for the troops (its NOT A DISASTER to be in harms way?) What would happen? Would they all suddenly die of fatal dandruff? And how would the RUIN America's reputation? It's ruined already. What would the rest of the world think if America stopped being agressive and started being defensive? Apparently aggression toward others is a virtue? Is it every morally aceptable to initiate force or fraud against another person or group of persons? How Libertarian can a person be and hold to that view? Hmmm....

"...That alone would put us in a position far worse than what we're in now (imagine that...)..."

HOW?

David

While I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks (i.e. "How Libertarian can a person be...") I'll respond to the common question of "How will it be a disaster?"

Leaving troops in harm's way is dangerous, I agree with that, it's pretty indisputable. And deciding that we'll take the troops out years from now is also a bankrupt decision because it denies how things can change that might warrant our continuance, including but not limited to a change in administration here in the United States. We need to get the troops home as soon as possible, but we have to be careful about it.

Let's say we leave Iraq tomorrow, or within the next month we've taken out most all of our soldiers. According to reports from generals on the ground, a civil war is pretty much waiting to happen, and that's exactly what WOULD happen if we did anything but a phased withdrawal. That civil war, after causing unknown amounts of damage and death, would ultimately result in a powerful centralized state. I'm not just hypothesizing here; it's the nature of Islamic regimes to have theocracy, because it's stable for them. And who would come to power? More than likely an administration that unites the country behind the entity that created chaos and was responsible for igniting a civil war: The United States of America.

Now, there are plenty of countries who hate us around the world, but most of them aren't willing to go to war with us. Even Iran, with its crazy leader, recognizes that starting a war with us would be disastrous for them. But Iraq has become a hotbed for terrorism, and once the anti-American administration is in place, it's doubtful that they will advocate against terrorist strikes against America; it will be seen as retribution. Furthermore, there will be hardly anything America can do about it, because we will have already failed once in Iraq in the not too distant past. There's no way the American public will get behind ANOTHER invasion.

Now, it is a legitimate criticism of my position to state that we're opening ourselves up for terrorism right now by remaining there, which I paradoxically agree with. But it's one thing to have terrorist cells within a territory fighting soldiers who have voluntarily enlisted; it's quite another thing when you have state actors funding terrorism for operations anywhere in the world, no doubt targeting civilians.

No one in America wants our soldiers to die, and I'm certainly one of them. Unfortunately, we have been led into a war now that, while hyped as such, wasn't for defense. But just because we have fundamental disagreements with the current war doesn't mean we can end it like it's just some big board game. As many of you have pointed out, it's real people dying, and real people dodging bullets. But I honestly think that suggesting death and destruction would all go away if we began some immediate pullout of our troops is a fairy tale. Out of principle, it would be best to use our forces always for defense, and to take them away from wars and conflicts that are/were not for defense. I'm for that, but it's hard for me to recognize the logic of removing all of our troops immediately.

This might all be just a matter of semantics. Perhaps those of you calling for an immediate pullout mean that it should happen in waves, but not something that drags on for over a year or more. I can certainly get on board with that. What I cannot rationalize, given the status of the conflict and the generals' statements, is a pullout by the end of September, for instance.

Perhaps some of you can clarify what "immediate pullout" refers to. It might be that we're arguing over nothing, and that we actually agree. Regardless, I think it's better that we're having a discussion about how soon to bring home the troops rather than having a disagreement about whether we should stay the course or not.

Marcus Brutus:

I will be more than happy to clarify what I mean by "immediate pullout".

1. Immediate and unconditional disengagement of all U.S. Forces from active hostilities.

2. Evacuation of U.S. Forces from Afghanistan and Iraq as fast as they can safely be placed on board aircraft and evacuated with their equipment. Now, I am not talking about Dunkirk here, but I think U.S. Forces could be completely gone from Iraq in ten days.

3. Contractors would be given a choice. Evacuate with U.S. Forces. Or stay at their own risk and without the protection or endorsement of the U.S. Government.

I generally empathize with your viewpoint Marcus Brutus. But we cannot win this fight. Please refer to Russia's sad experience in Afghanistan. They got tore up and all but expelled from Afghanistan. That is the fate of the U.S. in Iraq. We truly need to end this now.

Marcus, thank you for your reply - it helps give me a better idea of what you are arguing. I also cannot state clearly enough how much I disagree. While I know that we do not live in a libertarian nation, I don't think that is grounds to leave libertarian principles out of libertarian arguments. Nor do I believe that my rhetorical question ("how libertarian can one be and hold to this view") be seen as ad hominem (although I do see how it can parallel an ad hominem argument. Moreover, my initial post was (intentionally) emotive and terse.

Put the case this way: if our troops were instantly removed magically today (sent to neutral lands to come home - or, better, simply appeared on the couch at home) what danger would the U.S. face?

Given this as the basis for our argument, I would like to address your points:

The first: that this would result in a civil war in Iraq that, after causing unknown amounts of damage and death, would ultimately result in a powerful centralized state.

My answer here: that may well be, and the U.S. is certainly, in part, responsible for the situation there. Leaving out the question of what the Muslim views as a "good" State - we set this civil war in motion many years ago - right after World War II. I have no delusions about our part in this. However, I do pose this question: what right do we have - even knowing that a particular State is invalid or wrong (or any other moral judgment) - in occupying that land to stop that form of government? I propose that there is a much better way to combat that sort of evil. But in this instance: so what? So what if there is a civil war in a nation, and that that war ends up with a State of which others in the world disagree? So what? There is a solution to that problem that does not involve the abandonment of the PRIME AXIOM of libertarian thought!

As for "And who would come to power? More than likely an administration that unites the country behind the entity that created chaos and was responsible for igniting a civil war: The United States of America"

The conclusion to your argument here seems to be that we need to stay and create some form of powerful centralized state, because otherwise Iraq might set up some form of powerful centralized state backed by the U.S. That may work for the current administration - but not for rational people!.

Let me back up just a couple of steps: your objection to removing the troops seems to center around the idea that if they leave a civil war will erupt. But there is already a civil war in Iraq - and our soldiers are there now! How does our staying stop something that is already there?

Next, your argument moves to accept the idea that terrorists exist in Iraq now, and most likely any State sets up shop in Iraq will not work toward saving the U.S. from terrorist attacks. From this, I take it you believe that if we just stay in Iraq, we can set up a government that will defend us against terrorism? That appears to be as highly illogical as any of the neo-con arguments. Two observations: 1) We need to distinguish between insurgents and terrorists. Terrorism is defined as any organization that systematically harms civilians, irrespective of its motives. We can't fight terrorism by attacking Iraq, anymore than we can fight terrorism by attacking Spain. 2) One reason terrorists exist in Iraq is because that's the style of warfare seen as most effective against the U.S. In the U.S. war over Southern Succession, men learned that fighting in ditches was more effective than standing in lines shooting at each other. In Iraq, the enemy has learned no to fight by U.S. rules of combat. I do not defend terrorism. I simply make an observation here.

However, regarding your argument: how does remaining in Iraq ensure that the government set up there will be anti-terrorist and pro U.S.? How does occupying a people make them peaceful (instead of docile?). This argument does not lead to the conclusion that we must not pull out our troops.

Next, you argued: "...But it's one thing to have terrorist cells within a territory fighting soldiers who have voluntarily enlisted; it's quite another thing when you have state actors funding terrorism for operations anywhere in the world, no doubt targeting civilians..."

Which has been happening for almost 50 years. How does keeping troops in a foreign sovereign nation - breeding a hotbed of terrorist cells (inferred from your own statements) - end this activity? For the sake of argument (which, from what I see, is a valid and true argument) suppose that the notion of those troops IN that sovereign foreign nation (even as dissolute as post-U.S. Iraq) is a partial cause of terrorist activity? How does this imply that we therefore must remain? The actual proposition infers ever increasing terrorist activity, which requires therefore greater military intervention - ad infinitum. How does this prove that we must not pull out our troops?

Onward:

"...But just because we have fundamental disagreements with the current war doesn't mean we can end it like it's just some big board game..."

A war requires at least two enemies fighting. If one is not there, the fighting cannot happen (no targets). The point to withdrawal is that it is step one toward reparations. There is no way that any nation that has been overrun by a foreign government going to accept apologies and reparations while that foreign government remains as occupier. In order to end a fight, one side or the other must either be dead, unconscious, or stop fighting. A = A, to put it bluntly.

"...I honestly think that suggesting death and destruction would all go away if we began some immediate pullout of our troops is a fairy tale..."

I have yet to hear any argument that makes this claim. However, my argument is that the death and destruction will immediately begin to decline if this were to occur, and will continue to accelerate as long as we continue the same course. There is no middle ground.

Immediate pullout = starting today, as soon as the order goes out, U. S. troops get into vehicles, or start walking, OUT OF IRAQ, and as soon as they reach a suitable airfield or dock, they board appropriate vehicles that take them, without deviation, to the U.S., where they can either go back to work here, or deploy on our soil building a defensive system that can combat the inevitable Iraqi naval invasion fleet. (;

As for the solution to which I alluded earlier: economic freedom. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. This is not a pipe dream, not is it really a possibility with our current administration (and it doesn't look good for the 08 administration either - I'm a realist.) However, the solution is found in a truly free and open competitive world market, where NO business is subsidized and no tariff is ever assessed. Let's discuss how to implement that, rather than try to rationalize ourselves around the prime libertarian axiom of non-aggression.

David

David: Let's discuss how to implement that, rather than try to rationalize ourselves around the prime libertarian axiom of non-aggression.

Bob: Your post is clear and well written. However, let me pose a question:

If a Charles Manson-type secured a nuclear bomb and was in Tijuana, Mexico, would you send in the Marines?

"Purists" would seem to generally answer this question: No. They would "consistently" do so, because sending in the Marines would be "aggression," even if one could argue that Manson with a nuke in Tijuana is an inherent threat.

However, while the "formula" of non-aggression is HELPFUL in assessing sound policy, is that "formula" the ONLY consideration? I say No. Common sense and judgment SHOULD come into play.

The alternative is a nuke over LA, which is not something I would care to support.

So, we're now into the context of the situation. IMO, the Iraq War was a major mistake. But, in this case, it MAY be that it's appropriate for the US to remain there a bit longer, to stabilize the situation. Perhaps the US can't, I can't say for sure. But the US clearly DID destabilize the situation, and it may well be appropriate to aid in making the situation less severe.

It's a judgment, not a principle, I'm suggesting here. Good luck if you wish to reduce ALL human action to a single formula.

-Bob

"...If a Charles Manson-type secured a nuclear bomb and was in Tijuana, Mexico, would you send in the Marines?..."

My answer - No. Owning a nuclear device is not a threat. It is possession of a nuclear device. Threatening to use it IS a threat. But the marines also are not necessary. A Manson type might be an inherent threat - but that is a logic question, not even relevant to the issue. However:

What is real is the fact that we have Manson types in possession of nuclear devices right now. One of those who possess those devices recently accidentally shot a fellow hunter on a hunting trip. The other can't misunderestimate himself enough. He can misunderestimate us a lot though.

Part of the problem with the desire to control others is the fact that one can always rationalize a way to get around the fact that it is ALWAYS morally wrong to INITIATE force against another. A psychotic murderer with a deadly device is simply a crazy person holding an object. Until that person makes a move toward using that device in a manner that is an INITIATION of force against another person or group of persons, they are not guilty of any crime. And attacking someone who is NOT GUILTY of a crime IS a crime!

"...However, while the "formula" of non-aggression is HELPFUL in assessing sound policy, is that "formula" the ONLY consideration? I say No. Common sense and judgment SHOULD come into play..."

While this sounds nice on the surface, in reality, it is no check against any form of misuse. In fact, it is the way all 'States' operate. All human beings operate under presupposed principles. The prime libertarian principle is that it is wrong to initiate force against another person. It requires the CONSTANT and CONSISTENT use of judgment. One must always judge whether one is acting on this principle or not. This argument does not negate the use of force! It negates the INITIATION of force. (Can I repeat that enough times?) The alternative is to always be ready to initiate force against a person whenever it seems (common) sensible to us. This is no different from any other political view, makes the idea of even acting libertarian a silly idea, since there are already some powerful parties out there that already force people to do what they want through 'common sense and judgment.' (Might want to forget that term 'judgment' because it means nothing without a preceding principle other than a synonym for 'excusing.')

"...The alternative is a nuke over LA, which is not something I would care to support..."

No one does. But that possibility exists now, and it has nothing to do with arguments over removing personnel from another nation or not.

"...So, we're now into the context of the situation. IMO, the Iraq War was a major mistake. But, in this case, it MAY be that it's appropriate for the US to remain there a bit longer, to stabilize the situation. Perhaps the US can't, I can't say for sure. But the US clearly DID destabilize the situation, and it may well be appropriate to aid in making the situation less severe...."

In other words, keep fighting, shooting, and economically ruining another nation until things become stable. And that's called:

"...a judgment, not a principle, I'm suggesting here..."

"...Good luck if you wish to reduce ALL human action to a single formula..."

No problem. It's a very simple thing to do. 'All human beings act in their own self interest.'

David

David,

You have indeed made a very compelling argument, and I must admit that I have been convinced of your position. The best point you made was demonstrating the fallacy of assuming that we could create a democracy favorable to the United States, which is not only unprincipled, but also a dream world. Although I did not say that we should create a state favorable to us explicitly, I realize now that it's essentially what I was arguing. Which, subsequently, has made me rethink my entire position.

I am very much a pro-defense libertarian; I think we need to have missile defense, for instance, because it would guarantee that we could focus on having a defense rather than an offense. I also think that national defense is one of the few things left that our government actually focuses on while staying within their constitutional limits. And I think those who volunteer to defend our country are worthy of the utmost respect, both from us as citizens and from us as a nation.

Perhaps this is what clouded my judgement, for lack of a better term. I have trepidation about a withdrawal within the next couple of weeks, which I have described, but the alternative is much worse. I argued that we cannot stay there indefinitely because that amounts to another DMZ. But what I was suggesting ostensibly leads to the same thing.

I do believe that, at times, being the "party of principle" hurts us in that sometimes we do not have clear objectives, but rather simply ideology. Not to sound patronizing, but I'm glad that those advocating immediate withdrawal have very specific positions and opinions on the logistics of taking that course. Hell, it convinced me!

David,

You certainly are "consistent" in your views. The question Emerson might ask, however, is are you "foolishly consistent"?

I'm as sure that I can be that IF you believe that there's a right to private nukes, the answer would be "Yes." I'm very sure that anyone or any party that advocates the "right" to private nukes will not be elected or even influential in this any near-term lifetime. Perhaps you agree?

I am reeling, frankly, from THIS statement of yours:

'All human beings act in their own self interest.'

I see. So murderers and dictators, for instance, are acting in their self interest?

Sure, they may THINK they are, but I would suggest they have no idea what their self interest is.

Bringing this back to Earth, force is being initiated all over the place. In fact, human history is replete with force. That's the reality. You can, if you choose to, advocate Rothbardian/Randian platitudes til the cows come home, and advocate the right to private nukes, abolition of the government, and the right to kill fetuses as "parasites." These are, in a sense, charming views, but they will not -- I predict -- change anyone's mind, and certainly not change majorities of voters' minds. You may well be "right," but so what? Jihadists think they are "right," too.

-Bob

That is why I usually don't argue using the "no initiation of force" principle. While it is most certainly valid, it is very hard to defend to your average joe on the street.

I prefer to argue from the premise of "absolute right to private property" and "government's only legitimate purpose is to defend rights" premise. An easier premise for most people to understand and this premise ultimately gets us where we want to be anyhow.

"...You certainly are "consistent" in your views. The question Emerson might ask, however, is are you "foolishly consistent"?..."

Depends on what is consistent. George Bush is 'foolishly consistent' - pathologically so. I do not believe I am - for one simple reason: unless someone can convince me that the INITIATION of force against another human being (as a MEANS to any END) is ever morally acceptable, I must stand with what I know is right. I am open to any syllogism which changes my mind.

The point is not how powerful a weapon someone owns, but OWNERSHIP itself. Anyone can decide that some particular possession is too dangerous for another human being to possess. But is ownership really decided by the opinions of other people - or is it a human right?

"...So murderers and dictators, for instance, are acting in their self interest? Sure, they may THINK they are, but I would suggest they have no idea what their self interest is..."

Reasonably good point. I change my proposition to: "All human beings act in what they BELIEVE is their own self interest." A better argument against me would be "Do drug addicts act in their own self interest.?" Dictators most certainly do. Unless you can prove that the Mises was wrong I stand behind his logic.

"...Bringing this back to Earth, force is being initiated all over the place. In fact, human history is replete with force. That's the reality. You can, if you choose to, advocate Rothbardian/Randian platitudes til the cows come home, and advocate the right to private nukes, abolition of the government, and the right to kill fetuses as "parasites." These are, in a sense, charming views, but they will not -- I predict -- change anyone's mind, and certainly not change majorities of voters' minds. You may well be "right," but so what? Jihadists think they are "right," too..."

There is a difference between thinking I am right and being right. A challenge may be prove that I am wrong. For the record: I believe in the right to life of every human being including fetuses. Unlike those who choose to dehumanize particular persons by labeling them and then condemning them (as in a person who owns a personal nuke should be robbed or killed - applying apogogics to your argument) I believe that each is a valuable being and cannot be harmed UNLESS they harm or move to harm first.

As for being elected: If the goal is simply to be in office at the expense of principle - that person does not get my vote.

David

Hi Mark -

Couldn't agree more on a missile defense for the U.S. Also on your point of not using the Zero Agression Principle in speaking with non-libertarians. I use it primarily in debates with anyone who uses the name - because it's the axoim on which we build a foundation...can't go far without it.

In Liberty!

David

I saw something on TV that made me kind of nervous, given the Neo-Conservative zeal of the current administration. Fox News is parading Reza Pahlavi, former Crown Prince of Iran on TV today. I can just see President Bush try to militarily restore the Peacock Throne. Especially with the Fox Anchor's referring to him as "His Highness". At this point, I wouldn't put it past this administration.

David: There is a difference between thinking I am right and being right. A challenge may be prove that I am wrong.

Bob: You're not getting my point, kind sir. I think you ARE right! But so what? The government is huge. Coercion is writ large. But your rhetoric and policy prescriptions are convincing virtually no one! The point is: The "radical" libertarian message is simply NOT appropriate for this time and place. The MOMENT you say: "Yes, there's a right to private nukes," the general population will think you are a maniac. The vast majority of people -- now and forever -- are not interested is obscure theory. That's the bad news. The good news is that humans intuitively love liberty as a GENERAL proposition. Why not re-calibrate the Libertarian message in ways that appeals to the general public? In my view, we could make a lot of headway in the direction of liberty by doing so.

David: As for being elected: If the goal is simply to be in office at the expense of principle - that person does not get my vote.

Bob: Again, David, you need to check your premises. Politics is almost always a highly incremental game. If you're not interested in electoral politics, don't claim to be doing politics. You're doing philosophy. There IS NO "expense." Moderates such as myself simply want to play the game and to move things toward freedom now. We prefer to be appropriate and mature in our politics. We don't need to "prove" that we are "right." We KNOW, as best we can, that we are right. We want to play the game to improve the country, NOT to validate ourselves and our theories. You might want to read my article here for elaboration: http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001180.html

Robert,

Although people tend to "intuitively love liberty as a GENERAL proposition", they are too afraid and lazy for the responsibility portion of the equation. Before too much longer those who want to bring about a "Socialist Utopia" in this country are going to have their way and the jackboot will be at our throats. Gentle persuasion, although a fine thought in theory, should have been employed in the 70's to a greater degree. The social utopians in control of things have spent generations convincing people they can have something for nothing without consequence. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc. We should have been a loud voice of opposition every step of the way. Instead we remained silent, greedily sucking in their goodies until a few of us begai to feel the pinch and realize the price. To accomplish their goals they print endless supplies of money out of nothing; they have made every man woman and child in this nation a virtual economic slave to an opressive system of taxation, regulation and that coercion you mentioned. I have said it before, freedom is not comfort, freedom is not convenience, freedom is not safety, freedom is not the ability to call George Bush unflattering names.

To have principles, one must live according to their tenants. Other than that, you only pay lip service to the intellectual concept of principle.

Do you seriously think Libertarians are going to get elected to much of anything unless we show by example what Liberty is? Do you seriously think Libertarians are going to get elected given the stranglehold the Republicrats have on the election process? No offense intended Robert, but if the Founding Fathers took your lukewarm approach, we would still be singing "God Save the Queen". Those men and women were not "moderates" in any way. They risked their lives, families and fortunes every day. They felt the blessings of Liberty (the ones WE have squandered through our sloth), worth that risk. In life, you are a diner or you are dinner. I am a "Radical" Libertarian. I live my principles every day as best I can. I practice what might be called "Civil Disobedience". Coercion ENDS when people refuse to comply. Coercion fails as long as one person refuses to bow his/her head. I invite you to rethink YOUR premises.

CHUCK: Do you seriously think Libertarians are going to get elected to much of anything unless we show by example what Liberty is?

BOB: yes, I do. I believe that if the LP were to reposition itself for "smaller government...lower taxes...more freedom" -- as fiscal conservatives, social liberals, and war averse, we could challenge the majors. I think if the LP stands for "what Liberty is," meaning private nukes, we will continue to be an asterisk. Is this not obvious?

CHUCK: Do you seriously think Libertarians are going to get elected given the stranglehold the Republicrats have on the election process?

BOB: If we moderate, get good candidates, and some luck, we have a shot.

CHUCK: No offense intended Robert, but if the Founding Fathers took your lukewarm approach, we would still be singing "God Save the Queen".

BOB: Check your premises, kind sir. Yours is a false analogy. The US isn't being occupied by a foreign power, last I checked. By my assessment, the time for revolution isn't ripe. And the Founders weren't anarchists. Many of them were slavers, in fact. These times and those are entirely different. Good for you on your "civil disobedience." That may well work for you, but what's that have to do with the LP?

I'm a contrarian. That means, by default, that my views are not held by the majority. It does not mean I must change. I operate under a simple set of rules: if the conclusion of a valid (and true, I might add) syllogism results in conclusion 'A', I will not therefore accept conclusion 'B' because it is more popular. It may be unpopular, and not likely in my lifetime to 'come true' - this does not by any stretch of any imagination, that I must therefore think otherwise.

If it is wrong to murder a person, using a more humane method does not make it right. Nor does taking a longer time to do it. I understand the moderate viewpoint very well, it is a position that I will never take. Liberty is liberty, not somewhere in between. A is A, no matter how many people refuse to believe it. I stand by the truth, not expediency.

I do agree that it is very useful to re-calibrate the Libertarian (and libertarian) message in ways that appeal to the general public. But this can be done without abandoning the true and marvelous premises that comprise libertarian thought! Two really great people who are doing this are Michael Cloud and Dr. Mary Ruart. I find it a moral imperative to maintain the basic 'radical' Libertarian message (it's wrong to initiate force or fraud against another person) - what part of that are you going to compromise? - and find ways to show people that it is not only a sound argument, but one that will result in their liberty as well. The rhetoric I use in a libertarian blog site is far different from what I use in the general public. We will make NO headway toward liberty without people understanding it and wanting it. And that will never happen using your 'bait and switch' techniques - that is an age-old political device used by those who desire power over others, not the liberty of others.

While I will certainly submit my premises, I wish to point out that your statement "...Politics is almost always a highly incremental game..." is both a very weak proposition and a non-definition. It has very little value in the debate at hand other than to illustrate the position of moderate political thought. "Almost always" also includes 'Never always' or 'does not necessarily.' What's the point of having no point? Seems to me that in order for you to get the core of libertarians to join the conciliatory compromises of moderate politics, you'll need to convince them that their principles are to take second place to the goal of political position and standing. In essence, your demand is that we do politics as if our principle does not matter. Can't do that. Sorry! That's what defines a libertarian (though perhaps not a Libertarian!)

My premises (enthymematically stated):

- Anything which is morally wrong is not an acceptable behavior
- Many current political theories and activities are morally wrong
-Therefore they are unacceptable behaviors.

-"Politics" is the study of social relations involving authority or power
-It is wrong to initiate force or fraud against another person (or group of persons)
-Use of political power must therefore not use the initiation of force or fraud against another person (or group of persons.)

My premises are sound. They may not be popular, and I'd advise anyone who desires power over principle (even if to sneak that principle in the backdoor one power is assumed) to choose another platform and try not to steal the absolute term liberty to mean "limited liberty." Libertarianism is a philosophical political position, not a political party, any more than "Authoritarian" is a political party. It is distinguished from other philosophical political positions: Authoritarian, Right, and Left.

Just an aside: How mature is it to say "we want you to have liberty but we are not going to give it to you because that won't get us into office?"

David

D: - Anything which is morally wrong is not an acceptable behavior
B: Don't disagree. I'm sure you DO agree that all of human history, then, is filled with "unaccaptable behavior." So NOW you have a choice: Rail against ALL the unacceptable behavior, focus on some of the more egregious unacceptable behavior, or perhaps live in a cave.

D: - Many current political theories and activities are morally wrong
B: Sure. I disagree with most of them. But I personally pick my spots.

D: -Therefore they are unacceptable behaviors.
B: Yes, I suppose so. The question for a political party is: What do we DO about them? Catalog ALL the unacceptable behaviors?

D: -"Politics" is the study of social relations involving authority or power
B: No, I don't agree. That's political SCIENCE. Doing politics is, for me, about making social change. In my case, I'd like to increase liberty and reduce coercion through politics.

D: -It is wrong to initiate force or fraud against another person (or group of persons)
B: Great. sounds good to me.

D: -Use of political power must therefore not use the initiation of force or fraud against another person (or group of persons.)
B: Have I suggested otherwise?

D: While I will certainly submit my premises, I wish to point out that your statement "...Politics is almost always a highly incremental game..." is both a very weak proposition and a non-definition.
B: Sorry you find my statement weak. "Almost always" means throughout virtually all of human history. There are some exceptions...perhaps the American Revolution and passage of the 13th and 19th Amendments.

D: In essence, your demand is that we do politics as if our principle does not matter. Can't do that. Sorry! That's what defines a libertarian (though perhaps not a Libertarian!)
B: Please indicate where I've "demanded" anything. And where I said "principle does not matter." You can attempt to define what a libertarian is all you'd like, and you can take comfort, perhaps, in the notion that YOUR definition is correct. To me, anyone who wants to reduce government and coercion is OK in my book. I don't need them to define how some utopian future might look. Perhaps you do.

D: Just an aside: How mature is it to say "we want you to have liberty but we are not going to give it to you because that won't get us into office?"
B: Who's saying that? First off, liberty isn't "given," it's the natural order of things. Liberty is taken away by excesses of the State. The LP isn't in a position to give ANYTHING. Maturity, to me, is coming to accept what is. If you feel moved to change what is, then do so, if you can. If you think "libertarian" means one must advocate private nuke rights, immediate legalization of crystal meth, and kiddie porn, knock yourself out! I find such theoretical discussion interesting, but it's not politics. It's debating society material.

"....D: - Anything which is morally wrong is not an acceptable behavior
B: Don't disagree. I'm sure you DO agree that all of human history, then, is filled with "unaccaptable behavior." So NOW you have a choice: Rail against ALL the unacceptable behavior, focus on some of the more egregious unacceptable behavior, or perhaps live in a cave...."

Limited choices = informal logical fallicy! There is always another option: My choice, educate people on the fact that specific behaviors are unacceptable, and that you don't need to accept them, nor choose to do them.

"...D: - Many current political theories and activities are morally wrong
B: Sure. I disagree with most of them. But I personally pick my spots...."

So do I. I choose to consistently hold that ANY initiation of force is morally unacceptable, and I will work at all times to end such behavior. I will not compromise my view to admit that sometimes initiation of force can be rationalized. It is wrong, period and, as I stated in an earlier post, cannot be justified. Murder is murder, no matter how sorry you are that you have to murder your victim.

"...D: -Therefore they are unacceptable behaviors.
B: Yes, I suppose so. The question for a political party is: What do we DO about them? Catalog ALL the unacceptable behaviors?..."

No. You pick one or two strong points and focus on those: Libertarian points: Initiation of aggression is wrong, and requiring others to sacrifice their values for my benefit is wrong. From those points you build a consistent (to those points) world-life view. Only a socialist would try to catalog ALL unacceptable behaviors - how else would you plan a society?

"...D: -"Politics" is the study of social relations involving authority or power
B: No, I don't agree. That's political SCIENCE. Doing politics is, for me, about making social change. In my case, I'd like to increase liberty and reduce coercion through politics..."

You may not use my definition of politics - I don't use yours. However, and I quote you directly: "David, you need to check your premises. Politics is almost always a highly incremental game. If you're not interested in electoral politics, don't claim to be doing politics." Your claim infers that I can't possibly be 'doing politics', mainly because I do not use your premises as my arguments. I defined my premises and checked my views against them and found them to be consistent and full of clarity. Not going to get into a battle of semantics. I was answering your infrence that my premises were somehow skewed, not shwoing that they coincided with yours.

"...D: -Use of political power must therefore not use the initiation of force or fraud against another person (or group of persons.)
B: Have I suggested otherwise?..."

Yes.

"...D: While I will certainly submit my premises, I wish to point out that your statement "...Politics is almost always a highly incremental game..." is both a very weak proposition and a non-definition.
B: Sorry you find my statement weak. "Almost always" means throughout virtually all of human history. There are some exceptions...perhaps the American Revolution and passage of the 13th and 19th Amendments..."

Again, won't argue semantics.

"...D: In essence, your demand is that we do politics as if our principle does not matter. Can't do that. Sorry! That's what defines a libertarian (though perhaps not a Libertarian!)
B: Please indicate where I said "principle does not matter."

Those exact words did not come out, and I do wish to clarify my terms: there is (always) a principle behind moderate politics: basically: do whatever it takes to get into office with the least offence to the least number of people. The basic idea is the assumption of office (attraction of power?)

"...You can attempt to define what a libertarian is all you'd like, and you can take comfort, perhaps, in the notion that YOUR definition is correct..."

In other words, a libertarian is "whatever"? For you its one thing, for me its another? Marx was a libertarian, George Bush is a libertarian, Ghengis Khan was a libertarian, so was Ayn Rand and James Dewey! AS long as its just a title, its ok to use it! I'm beginning to think that the definition of a moderate is to have no definitions at all. Oh wait - that's what I started with. Well, it hasn't changed!

"...To me, anyone who wants to reduce government and coercion is OK in my book. I don't need them to define how some utopian future might look. Perhaps you do..."

No. Utopianism is a socialist ideal.

Final comments:

Your inference is and has been to abandon the prime axiom of libertarian thought because either people don't understand it, or it may drive people away. It is an either-or. You can either initiate violence against someone or you can not. There is no moderate position between them. Since you argue that we can't proceed to take political office proclaiming that the government cannot be allowed to initiate violence, you are left with the alternate. You must argue that government must be allowed to initiate violence against certain classes of people (of course defined by your particular political viewpoint) and be restrained from initiating against another class. I see no distinction between that view and socialism.

"...First off, liberty isn't "given," it's the natural order of things. Liberty is taken away by excesses of the State. The LP isn't in a position to give ANYTHING. Maturity, to me, is coming to accept what is. If you feel moved to change what is, then do so, if you can. If you think "libertarian" means one must advocate private nuke rights, immediate legalization of crystal meth, and kiddie porn, knock yourself out!..."

While I do not argue anything from a natural rights position, I also agree with you that the LP cannot "give" any thing, nor did my post infer that. I am arguing that the very idea that you can somehow take political office based upon the idea of deceiving the public by denying libertarian ideas and then somehow switching to them when you are in office is not only wrong, it is also false. And taking office based upon the idea that you can spread liberty without the underlying principle of liberty (the non-aggression principle) is simply the life Socrates warned about. Unexamined and still worth living? Unless you walk into office honestly, you will not behave in office honestly. Power corrupts all human beings - ALWAYS (not "almost always!)

It is interesting how you initially charged me with an ad hominem argument, and then in two separate posts, proceed to lay them upon me with much gusto!

David

BOB - "The US isn't being occupied by a foreign power, last I checked."

CHUCK - Check again, the strings in this country are being pulled by the Federal Reserve and more precisely the owners of the Fed. Who are they? The ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve are as follows:

Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros; New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York.

If that isn't worse than a Foreign invasion, I don't know what is. You don't REALLY believe Bush is actually running the show, do you?

BOB - "Liberty is taken away by excesses of the State."

CHUCK - Liberty can only be SURRENDERED by a compliant, ignorant, cowardly public. Nothing can be taken if it is not surrendered.

BOB - "I'd like to increase liberty and reduce coercion through politics."

CHUCK - Coercion ends when people refuse to be coerced anymore.

BOB - "...the Founders weren't anarchists. Many of them were slavers, in fact. These times and those are entirely different."

CHUCK - The Royalists and supporters of King George would probably strongly disagree with your sentiments regarding the founders not being "anarchists" in their view. That is, in fact an intellectually dishonest label. People who oppose the status quo are not automatically anarchists, but are often labeled as such (along with "conspiracy theorists") to discredit arguments on an emotional, non-intellectual basis. ("You aren't one of THOSE, are you?) Point of fact, slavery was a regrettable fact of life in the 18th Century. And the tired "these times and those are entirely different" argument is irrelevant. Oppression is oppression is oppression, whether it is from a Monarch in the 18th Century or a budding Socialist/Fascist Police State in the 21st matters little to me.

BOB - "Good for you on your "civil disobedience." That may well work for you, but what's that have to do with the LP?"

CHUCK - If one Gandhi or one King or one Jefferson, or Franklin, or Washington could change the course of history, what do you think 10, or 100, or 1,000 could do? If we are serious about restoring Liberty then the time has come to take the pipe from between our collective teeth, put it in the ash tray and get to work. Otherwise the LP will NEVER be anything other than a debating society. Nothing in the world is more "revolutionary" than true freedom. And it is PAST time for that.

David,

Perhaps this thread has outlived its usefulness.

I reread my posts, and I don’t see anything ad hominem, but if you do, I apologize.

It sounds as if you’re a fan of Rand, and perhaps Rothbard. I used to be so myself, although while those writers are still an influence on me, I find other approaches resonate with me better.

Let me ask you to try a little experiment: For a moment, purge your mind of your political philosophy. Then imagine a world in which anyone has the “right” to a nuclear bomb, unless they use it.

It’s a frightening thought, isn’t it? If it isn’t, then all I can say is good luck to you. To me, it’s self evidently NOT a world I would wish to live in.

NAP is a helpful concept, but it IMO can be applied in numerous ways. Julian Sanchez of Reason made a great point; that a socialist can be for NAP, as NAP says nothing about property rights.

You’ve been honest to suggest what YOUR strategy is: “My choice, educate people on the fact that specific behaviors are unacceptable, and that you don't need to accept them, nor choose to do them.”

Education is grand, don’t get me wrong. I simply don’t buy that that’s the appropriate job of a political party. A political party purpose should be to change policy by electing people from their ranks who will advance their agenda. In the LP’s case, it should be to increase liberty and reduce coercion. How that’s accomplished could take many, many forms. Libertarians – like all parties – disagree on details of policy and strategy.

For ex., many point to Ron Paul as the closest thing to a “libertarian politician.” I tend to agree. I admire Ron, and am pleased he’s in Congress. I don’t always agree with Ron, but I’d vote for him if I lived in his district.

For me, I want a more peaceful society. That, to me, means a lot less government. I really don’t care what other people’s philosophies are, but I’m a realist. I play it where it lays, as golfers say. I’m in the LP because it resonates with my views. I would like to see it become a major party, and begin electing Libertarians. I’m quite sure that I will disagree with some of those we might elect on any number of things. It’s my calculation in a practical world. If they don’t – or if voters don’t – entirely embrace “peace” or “non-aggression” as I do or you do matters little. In fact, you can make book on the fact that they will not embrace non-aggression as you or I define it.

I see you employed Rothbard’s take on “utopianism,” so perhaps the better word is “grandiose.” It’s simply grandiose to expect everyone -- or even majorities -- to become radical Randians or Rothbardians. This, too, is self evident. I prefer to help develop an LP that is relevant, appropriate and effective. You seem to believe that that necessarily means that I want “power,” or the LP to have “power.” Mea culpa, in the sense that I’d like to see Libertarians elected and changing the debate in the mainstream in a libertarian direction. The “education” would come in the “doing,” not in the “talking.” To err is human, so I fully expect that sometimes individual Libertarians may advocate things I disagree with. Unlike Rand, it seems self evident to me that the world is NOT, in fact, black and white. There are virtually always shades of gray.

But good luck with your tack.

-Bob

Bob, I believe the thread moved beyond its stated purpose early on. As for moving beyond its usefulness - that is hyperbolic.

There is a common ad hominem error that many non - libertarians make about libertarians: if we declare that we are for the relegalization of drugs, the argument then proceeds to пїЅlibertarians want to make drug addicts of everyone.пїЅ Such charges are false and irrelevant.

I am a fan of Rand's books - but not her philosophy. I side with Gordon Clark and John Robbins in that debate. I find the arguments of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, et. al., compelling enough that unless I find someone who actually proves their theories false, I will hold to them. I do not make the mistake of switching opinion with logical conclusion. In my opinion no one needs a nuclear weapon, nor to do crack. But my opinion has nothing to do with the idea of property rights.

Bob: Let me ask you to try a little experiment: For a moment, purge your mind of your political philosophy. Then imagine a world in which anyone has the 'right' to a nuclear bomb, unless they use it.

Note of clarification: I have never argued that someone has a right to property unless they use it. My argument is that people have a right to their property, period.

Bob: It's a frightening thought, isn't it?

Of course it's frightening. A world in which crime happens is frightening. Unfortunately we live in such a world. I can certainly switch to the mindset (your experiment) of believing that the State has the power to make us safe by randomly declaring things 'illegal'- based upon an ethereal feeling of 'security' thru coercing others to act how I want them to behave. I lived there for many years. I won't stay there though. My axiom is that it is wrong to initiate force against any person - no matter what they look like, or smell like, or the objects they own.

ZAP (NAP) does infer property rights (property rights are protected by ZAP) because no one can take your property without you voluntarily giving it away. ANYTHING else is an INITIATION of force. And if property is exchanged voluntarily, the ZAP has been recognized = even if tacitly.

Even to Rand the world had shades of gray - but that's a philosophical question. I know of very few people who actually disagree that their property belongs to them, and that an initiation of force is ever morally acceptable. Most simply have not worked out the practical aspects of what they know inside. The few that disagree (especially those who reject the ZAP) are societal threats пїЅ people who do not respect the property of others are generally thieves and murderers. The fact that they are willing to pull out a gun and force someone to act is a crimeпїЅ

FWIW, David, it's clear to me that you are employing a clever but, in my estimation, irrelevant level of analysis that is far more appropriate in a philosophy class than in politics. But some observations...

DAVID: There is a common ad hominem error that many non - libertarians make about libertarians: if we declare that we are for the relegalization of drugs, the argument then proceeds to пїЅlibertarians want to make drug addicts of everyone.пїЅ Such charges are false and irrelevant.
BOB: Why of course, David.If you want to reduce all discussion of the politics of drug policy to the rights of individuals to use their bodies as they choose, you are quite correct. The fact remains that certain drugs are illegal. A lot of people are in prison for using them. Contra your view, that's QUITE relevant to the incarcerated. The question becomes FOR ME: What do we do about that? You seem to continually repeat your mantra, and I agree with your mantra. But they remain in jail. I'd like to get at least SOME of them out. How about you?

David: I find the arguments of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, et. al., compelling enough that unless I find someone who actually proves their theories false, I will hold to them.
Bob: Fascinating view here, David. I'd not realized that Mises and Hayek were anarchists. Nor had I realized that they "proved" anything. They, instead, made observations and stated their OPINIONS about the state of affairs in their day. Do you REALLY think they came up with a "formula" for "truth"? That's, frankly, absurd. Rothbard, under the sway of Rand, perhaps thought he DID come up with a formula, but politics is not physics. Indeed, even physics is up for debate...I highly recommend reading up on Einstein vs. Newton.

David: Of course it's [private nukes] frightening. A world in which crime happens is frightening.
Bob: I assure you that "crime" doesn't frighten me. Private nukes, however, do. You have stated that property rights entitled people to private nukes. Therefore, your view frightens me.

David: I can certainly switch to the mindset (your experiment) of believing that the State has the power to make us safe by randomly declaring things 'illegal'- based upon an ethereal feeling of 'security' thru coercing others to act how I want them to behave. I lived there for many years. I won't stay there though. My axiom is that it is wrong to initiate force against any person - no matter what they look like, or smell like, or the objects they own.
Bob: Well good for you, David. I've said ZERO about the State "making us safe." I've said ZERO about "randomly selecting." Go ahead: cling to your "axiom." Private nukes are unacceptable to me. It's bad enough that governments have them, I don't, regardless of principle, quite frankly, want Charles Manson to have a nuke. Apparently you do, if he is "simply" exercising his "property rights."

David: ZAP (NAP) does infer property rights (property rights are protected by ZAP) because no one can take your property without you voluntarily giving it away.
Bob: Who's to says WHO has property rights? Did Bernie Ebbers have the "property right" to defraud investors? Anyone can CLAIM property rights,the question is, who has them, and who recognizes them?

David: The few that disagree (especially those who reject the ZAP) are societal threats пїЅ people who do not respect the property of others are generally thieves and murderers.
Bob: Again, your level of analysis is, IMO, quaint and irrelevant. NAP/ZAP is a nice goal, but what does it really mean? Apparently, you think it means that virtually EVERYONE is a "threat", since virtually everyone -- save you and a few extremist Rothbardians -- believe in the "right" to private nukes. But again good luck with that tack.

Private Nukes? Give me a break. This is what I mean about the Libertarian Party. Debating improbable fantasy and esoteric semantics when there are somewhat more practical matters we should be addressing more directly.

Don't bite through that briarwood guys, I have to go work on my Warp drive.

P.S. Bob, why is everyone who does not subscribe to your "moderate" slant an anarchist? "I'd not realized that Mises and Hayek were anarchists." Do you know what an anarchist is? Want the name of a REAL anarchist? Let's try for starters John Maynard Keynes, member of the Fabian Society a committed Socialist a leader in the move which starting in the 1930's took us completely off the Gold Standard in 1971 and made us all permanent debtors. His economic theories were treated as Moses off the mount for decades. Or how about Harry Truman's Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, who while serving the Administration and a member of the CFR was also "outed" by Whittaker Chambers (remember him?) as a Soviet mole along with Frank Coe who became the first President of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which begat the World Bank who along with the FED have virtually monopolistic control of the money supply of all industrialized nations and are now trying to get their slimey hands into the rest of the world? (Which is REALLY what this Iraq/terrorist/ Islamo-fascist crap is all about.) And you are worried about some Charles Manson type enriching Uranium in the atom smasher in back of his shack.

By the way, "Who's to says WHO has property rights?" The Courts, one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to zealously protect the property rights of individuals and enforce contracts. Not a very "anarchistic" stance is it?

Chuck, I use the "private nukes" notion with Rothbardians for the follow reason: It illustrates the employment of reducio ad absurdum by and to Rothbardians. Once a Rothbardian takes the position that there is a "right" to a private nuke, according the NAP, they have then exposed just how extreme Rothbardians are.

Of course, if you want to be extreme and use a "consistent" application of NAP, be my guest. What this illustrates for me is that NAP is not a formula I wish to rely on as my only test and guide. If you plug into the formula: Are there rights to private nukes?, and the answer comes out Yes, then there's something wrong with the formula, IMO.

This is not an issue I find interesting from a wider world perpsective. A Rothbardian who ran for Congress DID, however, say in a public forum that there IS a right to private nukes, so this isn't just a word game.

Am I gathering that you believe there should be courts? Good. I suspect you object, however, to how they are financed, i.e., through taxes. I'm also probably right that you often object to the court's interpretation of property rights, yes?

I'm pleased that you're interested in being relevant. I've taken what I believe is the further step, which is to choose rhetoric that the voting public is more likely to understand, and even sometimes support. Rothbardians seem uninterested in doing so. They seem to relish being "radical," to "hold high the banner."

I guess the hope of Rothbardians is that this will educate people. It's certainly a strategy, but I believe it's a poor one. My view is we table the implausible, theoretical issues and focus on more relevant issues that are enactable in the near term. This gives Libertarians a shot at being elected. When elected, they can demonstrate through their actions why more liberty is desirable.

-Bob

Until someone does come up with a "private" nuke, than the argument is moot as well as improbable. A Bill Gates would have far more resources for it though than a Charles Manson. That does not necessarily make me feel any better.

Absolutely I believe in courts, JUST Courts, HONEST Courts who follow the Rule of Law and not the Cult of Personality of whatever posturing jackass with a God complex sits on the Bench or the mood of the Country or temporary occupant of the White House be they savant or numbskull. I also believe in the other two Branches within the HIGHLY limited confines of the Constitution. I have no objection to USE taxes, but not to an oppressive amount and not such as we have now which is out and out theft. And I see no where in the constitution the guarantees of an income when one retires or an education at the expense of the public. Without property or economic rights, political rights are meaningless. Government must never again be allowed to rise above servant status. The people must ALWAYS be the master.

I realize that an extensive amount of responding has already been made towards this entry, so much so that it could be called a fruitless endevour to respond now. But I'll try to make my point and see if it will make it through the noise.

First of all, this bickering I see between two opposing viewpoints on this issue amongst my fellow Libertarians saddens me. This party has attracted me not because it is a gathering point for disassociated republicans and democrats to argue for certain radical viewpoints of their former parties. I see the optimistic viewpoint that if we stay Iraq untill the day it is magically better and able to self-govern to be just that. Optimistic to the point of naievity. But then again, to say that in light of this we must leave immediately due to it's hopelessness is not helpfull either.

The Libertarian Party is a party of personal responsibility within it's populace. We believe that a free people ought to be responsible for their own economic choices instead of having Father government their to bail them out everytime they get fired from their job, fail to save anything for retirement, or otherwise spend irresponsibly. In light of this policy, would it not seem the responsible thing to do to at least make an effort to minimize the damage in Iraq before we leave? Some of the things we are doing are correct. Helping train a national defense force is one, even if you say it will fail. Rebuilding neighborhoods that were destroyed when we attacked would be another. Replacing much that we can claim responsibility for the destruction to is the only right thing to do.

This chore should not be drawn out. But a real concerted effort to rebuild, so much so that our own conscience is clear for what we have caused to happen, is necessary. And we don't have to stay and endless course to do this. It is not up to me to say what is necessary to make up for this, it is up to all of america. Can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you opted to abandon them in the situation our own misleadership caused?

Then pull out the guys with guns and send in Habitat for Humanity.

"Can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you opted to abandon them in the situation our own misleadership caused?"

Yep.