I am convinced that gradually we will become effective in convincing people of the need to become responsable for their actions.

I too have been classified as "crazed" and "subversive" for my viewpoint but I am convinced that the Libertarian Party is the party that best represents the USA.

I also believe that we should act befoe we lose the USA to these special interest Republicans and Democrats.

I also want to interview Libertarians for my blog in order to get our message across.

Usually I consider myself a Libertarian, but really I am a "government minimalist". I greatly admire the Libertarians who adhere to Libertarian Principles, in fact I admire all people who stict to their principles.

Maybe, President Bush truly believes in the War on Terror and truly believes that the military conflict in Iraq is important element of the war on terror.

Whether I believe that the military conflict in Iraq is correct or not becomes moot, because President Bush is the current Commander in Chief and he is the one who gets to decide.

It is our legislators who are showing cowardice!! If they truly believe that the conflict in Iraq is wrong, then they should stop the funding. This cowardly act of passing non binding resolutions is just that, an act of cowardice.

So, although I am not a big backer of military excursions, I applaud President Bush for sticking with his principles.

The saddest thing about all this, is that Congress could exert its Constitutional Authority, simply by doing nothing. Simply by adjourning and going home. Simply don't pass any appropriations bills. Starve the Defense Department of Appropriations and the troops must be brought home. Just that easy. Tell Congress to go home and sit on its collective as until the troops are home, then pass the appropriations bills, minus anything for war of course.

Golferhal

"I admire all people who stick to their principles."

Suicide bombers stick to their principles. They are very commited people. I do not admire them, however.

"It is our legislators who are showing cowardice!! If they truly believe that the conflict in Iraq is wrong, then they should stop the funding. This cowardly act of passing non binding resolutions is just that, an act of cowardice."

I totally agree! And I believe the LP should be
putting as much pressure on them as possible to do
just that.

Unfortunately, the national convention voted against a resolution for Bush-Cheney impeachment. This was a big mistake, since we proudly voted for Clinton impeachment in 1998 and Bush is if anything even more deserving.

State and local LPs and LP groups should call for impeachment as loudly as possible, even though the
national office has its hands tied.

What most people fail to realize is that hostilities with Iraq never ended in 1991. Operations NORTHERN WATCH and SOUTHERN WATCH were rapidly wearing out Air Force and Navy aircraft. Especially after 9/11, the status quo of Iraq containment was untenable.

We could not have just left in 2003 while Saddam still defied the UN, because our allies and enemies would lose confidence in our word (we had said we would stay there until the Resolutions were complied with). The only way out was through, so I supported the invasion.

HOWEVER, occupation is only one possible goal of invasion. Once the offending regime had been thoroughly routed, we should have pulled chocks and left Iraq for the Iraqis to rebuild in a stable shape or shapes. Staying around to try to force hostile ethnoreligious groups to work through alien democratic institutions to keep an inherently unstable state (the Brits arbitrarily carved Iraq out of the former Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI) has been a huge mistake as it is an impossible task. If we'd cut Iraq into three from the outset, we might have built three stable states, but now it's too late and we're stuck with one very unstable state; it is likely that, after a long and bloody civil war, Iraq will become three stable states. Too bad it had to happen the hard way.

-1st Lt Mark P., USAF

The Iraqi people are victims of IMPERIALIST efforts twice over.

I remember my grandfather saying to me (I don't think HE made it up) "if you find you've dug yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

We should just apologize and evacuate. I favor bringing ALL troops abroad home. As a taxpayer, I am tired of funding the WORLD POLICE. Will it suck for them? Absolutely, civil war will surely grip the country. But at least the HEALING process will begin. Our efforts today only harbor greater resentment.

Coach Jim:

You are absolutely corect.

By the way, civil war is already happening there.

Mark is correct that the hostilities never ended in '91. There was an embargo in between the invasions which killed a million Iraqis, half children.

When asked about this, Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted it and said it was "worth it."

Thus, both wars and the 12-year embargo in between
can be properly seen as one giant 16-year long genocide against the people of Iraq. It's already killed 2 million of them, not to mention all those made homeless, raped, robbed, tortured, poisoned with depleted uranium, etc.

Before this happened, the standard of living in Iraq was far higher, and there was peace - although with a brutal but stable dictatorship.

Saddam was the recipient of American aid all through his term in office up to that point, including during the Iran-Iraq war, so he had no reason to doubt US envoy April Gillaspie was telling him the truth when she gave him the green light to invade Quwait.

Then, the Bush I Gang double-crossed Saddam, and everything that has happened there since then has been the result of that.

As for complying with resolutions - the American regime knew full well that whatever WMDs it had sold Saddam were destroyed or useless before invading. Notice how they did not invade North Korea, which actually does in fact have functional WMDs? If Saddam did not use WMDs to save his country, his life, or his regime, when would he have used him?

The UN resolutions, and the "allies" of the US regime against Iraq, were always just US regime puppets on strings, which is well known in the international community. Thus, disappointing them should never have been a concern.

We aren't acting as the world's policeman. There is no world's policeman. We are acting as the world's vigilante. There is a heap of injustice in the world but hardly anyone wants to join the posse, just criticize those who do. But justly formed posses should target the actual criminals, not shoot up and burn the whole town. Isn't there some way to take out the Saddams of the world without using hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars?

The Kurdish provinces in northern Iraq will secede, establish their own Western-style democratic political system, and take all their oil with them. Their is a possibility that the Kurdish provinces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and other countries will join them.

The Shia provinces in southern Iraq will secede, establish their own Islamic republic (either remain independent or become part of Iran), and take their oil with them.

The Sunni provinces will be what's left of Iraq, and go back to square one with their own Baathist-style, secular dictatorship. Unlike the other two regions, the Sunni region will be without oil.

The IES was the first political attempt by the party to tie principle with public policy. It failed, but in failing we gave the leadership role over to the Democrats, and have/had no money to fight the perception shift.

I would challenge the moral authority of the surge and commit the LP to stand with those Democrats defunding the surge while pressing for an exit in whatever manner politically most benefits the party.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain

Unless party headquarters has a cystal ball I don't know about, our fearless leaders are no better experts about Iraq than rank and rile members. Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, or how the war should be conducted, are factual matters that cannot be known "a priori".

The libertarian principle of non-initiation of force does not require pacifism. Yet, some in the LP act as if their personal opinions about Iraq were self-evident, and no rational arguments necessary.

This type of willfully ignorant moral smugness not only insults the intelligence of libertarians who hold different views on the matter, but also mocks the courage and integrity of our fighting soldiers.

The libertarian movement almost became extinct after Pearl Harbor, because of the isolationist views of a few in the movement. Let us not repeat their mistake. The war against Islamist fascism is not a war we have chosen. We turn our backs on it at our peril.

Please, join our discussion at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/

Kevin bjorson:

I can assure you that my non-interventionist views do not eminate from any pacifism on my part. In fact, I condemn pacifism. If I am personally attacked, I will defend myself with all force necessary, up to and including deadly force if it comes to that. I can pretty much assure you that there are very few true pacifists in the libertarian movement. Most of them are to be found in peace movements unrelated to the LP.

Aggresive war is not self defense. We were not engaged in an act of defense while overthrowing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq. We were engaged in aggressive war.

I personally have "rationally" argued against war many times. Frankly, it is often the pro-war side that uses emotional arguments as well as the occasional ad hominem.

I would refer you to http://www.mises.org were there are numerous, well laid out arguments against war.

War necessarilly involves aggression, and this is not always a bad strategy. Perhaps Mark B. would have Americans passively wait behind our extensive borders, and expensively defend against every possible terrorist attack.

I'd rather take the war to them. This means, I favor an aggressive strategy. This does not mean I would have the US initiate force. Because similar rules apply to groups of persons, as applies to an individual.

I'm glad to hear Mark B. is not personally pacifistic. Why then would he neuter the US military?

There are three categories of force, according to time sequence:
*initiatory
*defensive
*retaliatory

A robber who holds a gun demanding money from a bank teller, initiates force. A bank security guard who responds with force while the robbery occurs, uses defensive force. A policeman who catches the armed robber, after the robbery has occurred, uses retaliatory force.

To say the US should use only defensive force, calls for the US military to act only on US soil, in response to an invasion of America. Not a good idea, because our enemy is not organized along conventional military lines, and can strike us at a time and place of his own choosing.

There is evidence that Saddam was involved in the OKC bombing:
http://tinyurl.com/3yvp2a

You cannot claim, "a priori", the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, libertarians may disagree about foreign policy. And please, do not confuse libertarian hawks with Bush apologists.

"The libertarian principle of non-initiation of force does not require pacifism. Yet, some in the LP act as if their personal opinions about Iraq were self-evident, and no rational arguments necessary."

thats not a libertarian principle, it's an anarchist one. The future success or failure after 08 will be tied exactly to the removal of the pledge as well as any other self limiting measures to party support by as wide a coalition of supporters as possible. The LP support base is too small. This must be corrected before the party can have enough money and members to challenge the big parties directly in targeted elections in '10 and '12.

and yes, my opinion about Iraq is exactly self evident enough for me, and it doesnt need to be anything else for anyone else. my time may limited more than others.

I dont need to engage in 'rational arguments' to know that some pople are flaming idiots suspective to any conspiracy theory who need to be told that, just like serial child rapists are child rapists and not in fact, child care specialists.

This "ad hominem" BS within the LP is a bunch of stupidity. Most people dont talk like randian robots, when they think someone else is a goof and a uneducated moron, they say so. It's about time we try talking like normal people instead of whatever passes for trendy and in vogue among the self described "intellectuals" in the libertarian 'movement'. People outside the movement might start thinking we're more normal.

The LP needs less Spocks, less logic, and more emotional and more normal expressions of thought. Might appeal to more people that way.

and yeah, I'm feeling extra spicy this morning. Deal with it, you bunch of robotic futurama wannabes. Grow a personality. Stop thinking you have to all sound like reasoned robots.

This will probably be yanked, but I cant take it anymore. most of you people sound like machinery, not humans.

Agree with you, Steve. However, I suggest some care should be taken regarding defining what to "do" and how we state our principles.

It's a question of calibration and rhetoric. If the LP continually takes far outside the mainstream positions, and couches those positions using inflammatory rhetoric, the LP will not get "credit" for being "right." Instead, most people will simply "tune out" the LP, because the radical pose is just too jarring. It discredits, I suggest, our message of peace and freedom. That, IMO, is counterproductive, and ultimately UNprincipled.

People want more freedom, but they don't necessarily want a libertarian society tomorrow. They would be right! The dislocations of wholesale, radical change would be very risky. And, truth be told, will not happen, particularly in such an affluent society.

-Bob

This was written by Mike Blessing. Very well put, except that he does not take into account that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or useless by the time the Bush gang invaded, and they knew that (google Downing Street Memo).

----

Our freedoms aren't in any kind of real jeopardy from any Islamic-socialist/fascist idiots of the kind that are popular in the Middle East. Last time I checked, it wasn't those Muslims passing such anti-Constitutional legislation such as the McCain-Feingold law, restrictions upon the rights to self-defense and owning and carrying weapons, self-medicating, etc. That was "our" native-born idiots in the Congress and State Legislatures, on both sides of the aisle.

Now, should any Islamic theocrats arrive in America and start pushing their version of legislation, my response to them will be the same as what I say to any Aryan Airheads that I come across -- "We're not going to change each other's minds, and as long as we mind our own business, it's not a big deal. BUT, if I find out that you're using physical force against others to promote your racial/religious agenda, I look forward to taking corrective action via the Second Amendment."

Winning vs. losing in Iraq? We lost the moment that Saddam was toppled and the Iraqis said, "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam for us, now you
can leave." One of the founding ideals of America is that occupation from abroad is a bad idea, considering the British occupation of the 1770s. Now you're asking American troops to play Redcoat in Iraq?

Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Yep, he had 'em, all kinds of chemical and biological stuff, some of which was provided to him by Bush the Elder in the 1980s. So what -- other countries have the same sort of stuff and worse (Russia comes to mind), but Bush II hasn't gone to war against Putin.

Kim Jong Il is, by just about any standard available, a worse dictator than Saddam was, and that's saying a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Il

He's a totalitarian that puts Saddam to shame, his economic policies led to a famine in the late 1990s and early 2000s that killed over
100,000 people and causing about 2,000,000 more to run to China, making China the only communist country in history to have problems with illegal immigrants. Kim has been developing ballistic missiles with the potential to reach the continental United States, and has been playing in the nuclear arena for about a decade now, and is
suspected of having several nukes ready for testing.

Why hasn't the United States invaded North Korea? It fits all the "standards" of the Bush Doctrine -- Kim's got WMDs, Kim's a bad, bad guy, Kim stands to threaten long-standing American allies.

Finally, what's this "we" that's engaged in sending the troops to Iraq? Last time I checked, *I* never gave voice to any support to the
initial invasion of Iraq. It was George Bush, his neo-con henchmen and his state-supremacist puppetmasters that pushed for this war.

"We" as libertarians don't need to do ANYTHING but bring the troops home safely ASAP, and let the Iraqis figure out their own affairs. Anyone who wants to go to Iraq and join their civil war is free to grab an M-4 and sign up with outfits like Blackwater, DynCorp, MPRI, Eastern Cross, SCG International Risk, etc. -- opportunities abound!

we would never actually fight anyone who could fight back and actually hit the US, that's why. Neo-Con bastards only attack the weak and the militarally crippled. What I want to know is how come with trillions of military spending over many years we cant defeat a two bit militia like the Medhi gangsters.

All of these neo con people like Paul Wolfowitz should be arrested and have war crimes charges brought against them. I cant believe no one is standing up against them thats in a position to matter. They personify "domestic enemies" in the oath of office.

Tim:

As we are both well aware, there are times when we disagree, but you are very much correct on that one.

Very well put, sir!

And my continuing best wishes on your health.

Timothy West:

I have no problem with passionate expressions of thought. My problem was with arguments from emotion that cannot by any rational means be justified. Frankly, rational thought would be useless on most of the sheeple, as they are too lazy, indolent and indifferent to their liberties to care. If it sounds like I have nothing but contempt for about 90% of the public, it is, well, because, I do.

So, for those people, I will use emotitave appeals to passion, because that is all their limited minds are capable of understanding.

See Tim, I can be capable of plenty of spice myself. :)

Kevin bjornson:

No, I do not wish to neuter the military, merely a vasectomy. :) Nor do I wish America to wait "passively". Do not confuse my non interventionist stance with passive inaction. There are many actions we can take, particularly beefing up our HUMINT. The money and resources that could be saved by non-intervention could be used to increase security at home. It is much easier to fight the enemy on your home turf rather than theirs.

"If it sounds like I have nothing but contempt for about 90% of the public, it is, well, because, I do."

then expect nothing but contempt back from them when you try to get them to vote for libertarian candidates.

I don't express contempt for them openly, much as they might deserve it, and I seriously doubt any of them could recognize it anyhow.

Right again, Tim!

I don't have some condescending attitude towards most people, using emotional appeals with calculation against those I regard as inferior.

I address issues with emotion because I actually feel it, and while most people have not studied a lot of the information I have, I understand where they are coming from.

"I don't express contempt for them openly, much as they might deserve it, and I seriously doubt any of them could recognize it anyhow."

It's been my experience that a lot of people are intentionally ignorant and/or play dumb, so you may not even recognize that they recognize what you are doing.

paulie:

thanks. Last MRI was 'good' news, looks like I'll have at least another year to live and maybe with good luck 2+. That's 2 years 4 months longer than I was given when it was discovered.

I just wish I knew if I was making the best use of my time. How does one know? I want freedom and liberty to be restored to this country in practice and effect. I want the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be restored and respected again. I'm in no position to make that happen. Is it better to stand for the right things and know you cant achieve them or better to stop chasing ideals when you know your time is not infinite?

What dreams do you live for when you know you cant realize them?

I will put the issue in another perspective.

Why should I have respect for people who know all the American Idol contestants, survivor contestants or the latest TV fad, but cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice or their own Congressional delegation. These people have sold out their own liberty for a handout from the Federal Government and have not stood up one time as the Federal Government takes more and more liberty away from them. If these people want to live in slavery, fine. Trouble is, these people are selling YOU and ME into the same servitude as they themselves. So, I am not sure why I am expected to have respect for them. When they behave like citizens and not like subjects, they will have my respect and not one second sooner.

Mark and Tim: you are both approaching the same problem from two different angles.

A lot of people are aware of the problem, don't think anything can be done, and tune out politics.

After all what difference does it make who represents me in Congress when the Democrats and Republicans largely vote for the same things? Who cares who's on the supremely kangaroo kort if none of them care about what their own constitution actually says?

But when we don't rise up and make all the noise we are allowed to, naturally our views are reflected not at all in the media. When we do make noise, oftentimes we can break through. You never know who you touch or how.

Lew Rockwell lays out the case for libertarian optimism, well worth reading:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/have-hope.html

Plug away all you can. It just might make a difference. But don't blame all those who lost hope or never knew enough to have it in the first place. We have the tools to make them notice us.
We haven't used them nearly enough.

And when I say tool, here is just ONE of many, many examples:

http://www.freewayblogger.com/

Why aren't more libertarians doing stuff like this?

It does not take a lot of people or a lot of money.

The signs can be homemade.

and from my viewpoint, such things as the pledge and the desire to articulate a anarchist utopian ending before we can even get one law like All Children Left Behind overturned make it impossible to have hope, Paulie. There's a fundamental disconnect there from reality where too many in the LP care about things that simply dont matter in the real world of political involvement.

Libertarians have a real problem expressing viewpoints that non libertarians can not only understand, but agree with and vote for. They have the world of principle in a fantasyland no one else knows or cares about covered, but the application of the stuff on the street is impossible. You cant sell " all taxation is theft" to normal people.

The stuff you could sell, like maybe that having seniors pay taxes to education and schools 30 years after their own children are grown up and gone and that they shouldnt have to do that, we dont promote, even after it's proven a winner issue that could be duplicated all over the country.

The LP has NO GRASP on how to translate it's principles into how to actually govern, which is what you have to do at some point.

Did you read Lew's piece? I think he makes a great case.

This one, on the other hand, overstates it a bit:

http://www.communistvampires.com/articles/macho.htm

But it has a point. If you are small and weak and compromise is your starting position, you can't achieve much. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu, when you are
weak, negotiate from a position of strength.

By pressing for a radical version of libertarianism we won't get everything we want,
but we will get some people to consider less radical versions of our ideas, and at some point they do filter down to policy changes.

I'm a "diversity of tactics" guy - we need a simultaneous variety of approaches, from ultra-radical to moderate, from partisan to non-partisan to infiltrating the big parties to radical anarchists protesting in the streets and
discussing different types of anarchism with different types of anarchists.

If you study the history of the socialist movement, they did all of the above.

A good tactic to follow would be pressure on Congress NOT to pass particular legislation. To wit. The House of Representatives has just reported H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. It should be referred to as the Union Thuggery Enabling Act of 2007. This horrible legislation will abolish Union certification elections and instead allow Unions to use card check to certify. In an NLRB election, workers can vote no and the Union does not know who voted no. In card check, the Union knows exactly who has not signed a card. Any worker who refuses to sign will likely be harassed, intimitated an possibly beaten, unless and until they give in and sign. In addition, this legislation contains a provision requiring newly unionized companies to submit to binding arbitration to establish a first contract, thus forcing a company to bargain with an unwanted union.

Unions have been getting beat left and right in elections, so like the thugs they are, they simply are going to get rid of the pesky elections so that they can employ thuggery and violence to get their way.

H.R. 800 has 233 co-sponsers and will easily pass the House of Representatives. We must work on the Senate, to try to get this thing filibustered to death. This would be a fine opportunity for the LP to take action.

But they always considered the most politically attractive stands first. They didnt tell everyone the end game 30 years before that game was ready for the american people to consider. We are always and constantly doing just that.

it may interest you know that I have a keen admiration for Eugene V. Debs as a man. I keep wishing we could find a libertarian Debs to speak for us. He was a master orator, and he understood how to connect moral principles with practical political action, which is the LP's weakest spot.

Mark B. - to do that, we have to have more liberty leaning friends that are R's or D's that will work with us. Being so small, we have little leverage and provide little incentive. The number 1 task in front of the party is to remove any and all institutional barriers to membership and money in support of the LP. We have to grow the support base of this party before we can start to matter in real terms. The R's are going to destruct into 3 factions and we can get at least one of them. What we need is more push towards what Ed Clark called "low tax liberals". FILL UP THE ENTIRE NOLAN QUADRANT, and worry bout he small stuff later.

The actual invasion/liberation of Iraq cost a small fraction of what has been spent. I don't favor the altruistic occupation of troubled areas with nothing to offer us.

Simply increasing security at home, and waiting for terrorists to strike (at a time and place of their own choosing), would be disastrous. We would have to win every time for that strategy to work. We can't defend adequately against every possible attack. The possibilities are endless. Any place with a lot of Americans, or of great economic value, is a target.

No, we need to strike terrorists on their home turf, and deprive them of the subsidies of nationalized oil and prohibited drugs. In any case, you haven't derived your personal non-intervention philosophy from the non-initiation of force principle. Timothy West knows very well that can't be done, which is why he's distancing himself from the pledge.

What happened to the promises of a "Big Tent" libertarianism? Room enough for rabid and moderate Rothbardites, but not for libertarian hawks? The folks at the Ayn Rand Institute are very supportive of the classical liberal intellectual tradition, yet they favor a foreign policy far different from both LP leaders and the Bush administration.

The most politically attractive stands. Hmm.

Income taxes. Everyone pays them. No one likes them (except maybe accountants). We know why they exist and that if spending were cut and the national debt paid down they could be eliminated. When we tell people we have a plan to eliminate incoma taxes they will ask us how. Then we tell them, to the point, that libertarians cut spending and eliminate waste in government. We tell them that libertarians will end the costly drug war, fix social security, end welfare in favor of private charity which is 85-90% efficient comared to the government which operates at about 30% efficency, etc. We have the right ideas. We have not done well at making the general public aware of our ideas. I have never heard a libertarian commercial on the radio or seen one on TV. I never hear libertarians on the news and I follow political news. What are we doing to change that. Grass roots is all well and good, but we need to reach greater numbers of people quicker. The time is perfect with a hundred people running for President. We need to make some noise. A large gathering that requires media coverage because of location such as NYC or something that already has media coverage we can piggyback on like a major sporting event. We all read libertarian news because we search it out, but we need to reach John Q. Public on his couch.

Paulie -

My only problem with what you said is that libertarians (and traditional conservatives) are not too welcomed in the G.O.P., and would not receive any warmer reception from the Democratic Party, either.

It is bad enough that the more moderate forces in the LP gained control of the party. But, I would be horrified if the hawks gained significant influence in the party.

If that happens, then it would be no different from when:
(a) the left-liberals, labor unions, and progressives (i.e. - borderline socialists) took over the Democratic Party.

It would also be no different from when the G.O.P. was taken over by the unsavory elements that we've discussed many times before.

Remember, we libertarians had control of the Democratic Party until we allowed the left-liberals, labor unions, and progressives into the party. They eventually took over and became dominant in the party. They showed their appreciation by showing many of us the exit door.

Then, we libertarians and the traditional conservatives had control of the G.O.P. until we allowed the neocons, the social conservatives, and the Religious Right to enter the party. They eventually took over and became dominant in the party. They have given their thanks by giving us the boot.

We cannot afford to make the same mistake for a third time. But, I think we did it again when we allowed the moderates to take control of the LP and gut the platform the way they did.

"But they always considered the most politically attractive stands first. They didnt tell everyone the end game 30 years before that game was ready for the american people to consider. We are always and constantly doing just that."

Some of them did. The Communist parties certainly did. In some countries, they came to power.

"it may interest you know that I have a keen admiration for Eugene V. Debs as a man. I keep wishing we could find a libertarian Debs to speak for us. He was a master orator, and he understood how to connect moral principles with practical political action, which is the LP's weakest spot."

I agree with all that. Absolutely.

"My only problem with what you said is that libertarians (and traditional conservatives) are not too welcomed in the G.O.P., and would not receive any warmer reception from the Democratic Party, either."

That's all certainly true. Yet libertarian caucuses within those parties have at least some influence. Alternative parties also do not receive much warm reception from the voters, so it's a matter of some debate as to which strategy gets us the most influence. I personally think it's having our own party, but I'm not so sure of that to say we shouldn't hedge our bets.

It may even make sense to have more than one libertarian party. Early on, the Communist and Socialist parties split and yet Communists managed to take over countries while Socialists got most of their agenda incrementally adopted by the major parties. And yet the major parties were always hostile to open socialists; even today, anyone who goes around calling themselves a socialist and advocating wholesale nationalization of all industry is unlikely to be a major party candidate.

Bernard Sanders, like Ron Paul, is the exception which proves the rule.

So, perhaps a more radical libertarian party and a more moderate one may be a good idea. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Tim and Carl have talked about starting a new moderate libertarian party; I would like to see what they come up with if that happens.

On the other hand, if they succeed in turning the LP into a moderate libertarian party, perhaps radicals will pursue the idea of making the Boston Tea Party into a real party, although personally I'm not fond of the name. Not everyone knows what the original Boston Tea Party was, and it implies a certain regionalism to some people.

Perhaps we'll all be able to keep getting along, sorta kinda, in the LP. We'll see.

There are all kinds of strategies. I've considered the possibility of starting a libertarian caucus in the Green Party, for example.

"No, we need to strike terrorists on their home turf, and deprive them of the subsidies of nationalized oil and prohibited drugs."

Careful; the Secret Service may not appreciate you making such statements about the white house resident and his friends.

"In any case, you haven't derived your personal non-intervention philosophy from the non-initiation of force principle."

Of course I have.

We'll start with how the military is funded.

You can find a ton of great information at

http://www.libertarians4peace.net/

Especially in the links section.

http://www.anthonygregory.com/

Is another great resource.

it is bad enough that the more moderate forces in the LP gained control of the party.

exactly whats been bad about it? I dont see the LP advocating larger government, more social spending, or anything that could be construed as anti libertarian, with the exception hopefully of getting rid or modifing the pledge. Nobody is going to change the partys statement of principles - it would take 7/8th a convention vote to do that, and thats not going to happen.

you know what happened in Portland? enough regular Joes in the party agreed with us that the platform was a piece of CRAP that contained 25 years of everyones pet little planks in it, and they decided to throw it all out and start fresh. The LRC had at best 11 or 12% of he delegates. We could not change or modify anything by ourselves. It was regular delegates that threw it out becuase it was a tortuous mess of JUNK that grew like cancer over the years becuase everyone thought the the LP had to say something about every issue possible, instead of letting our candidates do the talking.

I hope the next platform will fit on a 8 X 11 sheet of paper. No reason in the world for it not to. Our candidates are our spokespersons, not the party. The party does not exist to represent the entire libertarian movement, only the political end of it.

"In any case, you haven't derived your personal non-intervention philosophy from the non-initiation of force principle."

damn straight. I think that principle sucks. Good for people, impossible to have government as a result. Governments have to be able to enforce the rule of law, or they arent governments.

I support limited, low cost, constitutional government. Where it has gone astray, I seek to return it as such.

"By pressing for a radical version of libertarianism we won't get everything we want,
but we will get some people to consider less radical versions of our ideas, and at some point they do filter down to policy changes."

It's exactly the opposite. All you do is make people tune you out, stop listening, and refuse to consider your policy changes. If what you claim worked, we would be living in a much freer country, becuase that's been the LP's M.O. for many years. It's failed on any level to bring liberty.

"It's exactly the opposite. All you do is make people tune you out, stop listening, and refuse to consider your policy changes. If what you claim worked, we would be living in a much freer country, becuase that's been the LP's M.O. for many years. It's failed on any level to bring liberty."

I think we ARE living in a much freer country than we would be if it didn't work at all. Does it work completely? No, because we don't do nearly enough activism, because we get discouraged, and because we are not the only ideology for sale in the marketplace of ideas.

Yeah, some people will tune out, others will tune in. Some at first to disagree vehemently.

If you read the articles by Rockwell and Sipos I linked above, you should be able to see what I mean by this.

Paulie; It is very difficult to have conversations of this type when one fails to understand words. Principle; "a moral or ethical standard of good behavior"..a man of principle. To imply that people who have been brain washed into becoming a "suicide bomber" is a person of principle is a little bit over the top.

The real problem, as I see it, is we keep talking about a war in Iraq. We have a world war going on, it is primarily a cultural war, but political agencies certainly support the sides which they most closely identify with.

Currently, we are making these terrorists use their military in Iraq. If we leave Iraq, they will be able to use their military assets somewhere else.

The current strategy of making it as difficult as possible to fund their activities and to occupy their military assets in Iraq is about as good a strategy as I can think of. But to just leave Iraq so that the terrorist groups can use their military assets to attack our country again is kind of like being a suicide bomber.

I can tell you that we are living in a much less freer country than when I was born in 1963, a much less freer country than than when I was a kid in the 70's, and a much less freer country than I was living in 15 years ago. I shouldnt even have to make the statements; they are self evident truths.

if proposing the most radical proposals ever worked for the LP, this would not be the case. But as you well know, for most of it's existance, the LP was about growing libertarians as liberty cultists, not engaging in the public policy debate or seriously attempting to elect libertarians.

I cant even begin to say what a horrible price we have have all paid for David Nolans colossal failure to understand that the purpose of a political party is to be just that instead of something else "that may even get some of us elected" as a afterthought. America desperately needed a LP that was first and foremost a political party in the 1970's, and if we had that, we might not be so bad off today.

Kevin said:
"In any case, you haven't derived your personal non-intervention philosophy from the non-initiation of force principle."

Paulie said:
"Of course I have.
We'll start with how the military is funded."

(Kevin) I share your opposition to taxation, and apply that principle to all government, including domestic. So your refutation applies only to the present tax-funded military, not the proposed voluntarily-financed military. So, I guess we should all stop driving on government roads, using government schools, or calling the government fire department--until the libertarian utopia arrives.

Government can and should be financed by user fees and fines. The proper purpose of government is the protection of liberty, liberty, and property--through the rule-based application of defensive and retaliatory force.

I agree with Timothy West's evaluation of the former platform. The foreign policy plank in particular was wrong--so, moderating a bad position wouldn't be much of an improvement.

Lbertarians never dominated the Democratic-Republican party (now called the Democrat party), since it included many apologists for slavery such as Thomas Jefferson.

The last time moderate libertarians controlled the Republican party, was over 100 years ago. Timothy, what are you talking about? Liberatarian doves tend to talk only with each other (and leftists), and they seemed to have invented an alternative history.

The Democratic Party, from its start as the Jacksonian faction of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1828, while never truly libertarian, at least stood for a small central government and supported a true commodity currency. Unfortunately, in 1896, the Democratic Party sold its soul to William Jennings Bryan and the Progressives and have been a big government, socialist party ever since.

The Republicans, from their founding in 1854, have been a party of mercantilism and big government. Essentially, the Republicans picked up the mantle of the old Whig Party and Henry Clay. They wanted to establish a strong central government, fiat money, heavy tariffs and government subsidies. The only real difference between the early Republicans and the modern Republicans is that tariffs have been replaced by managed trade agreements with built in subsidies and protections for certain industries, i.e. NAFTA.

Why do emotions and logic have to be mutually exclusive? My reasons for being a libertarian are both, and both reasons are equally valid.

I believe from a reasonable, logical standpoint that all people are created equal and we all deserve personal liberty. We should be able to do what we want, when we want to, on our own private property (and that includes our own bodies), or on someone else's with their permission, so long as it harms no one else.

I also believe from an emotional standpoint that I just want to be left alone to do my own thing. I'm tired of government intervention and nanny-statism, and a myriad of other abuses.

Both sides lead to me to the same conclusion, so saying we have to be either emotional OR logical is silly - be both, like a "real human being".

Kevin Bjornson -

Unlike you, we anti-war libertarians are have been (and are) stating the facts. We have a better grasp of history and policies that would actually make sense.

It is you hawks that are spewing B.S. and are a danger to this party and this country since you support wars (such as Iraq) that would jeopardize the security of this country, deplete the resources of our military, spread our military even thinner than it already is, and make us more vulnerable to terrorist and military attacks.

Republicans until Teddy Roosevelt had definite libertarian leanings. Drugs were legal then. The modern income tax and federal reserve weren't established until around 1913. The gold standard wasn't abandoned until later. Three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan campaigned against the "Cross of Gold".

The last hurrah of the libertarian element in the GOP was the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater. Barry was a hawk, with strong libertarian leanings. Back then, hawk and dove libertarians worked together--libertarian Karl Hess was Goldwater's chief speechwriter.

Ronald Reagan appropriated some libertarian rhetoric, and succeeded in siphoning away many right-leaning libertarians. The result was, those remaining in the LP tended to be disproportionately left-leaning. Murray Rothbard accelerated the process, by aligning his mythical "Old Right" with the "New Left", and equating non-interventionism with non-initiation-of-force. Ever since, libertarian doves have tightened their stranglehold on the party, making libertarian hawks feel unwelcome and out of place.

The results have been disastrous. The Reform Caucus fails to realize, the problem is with the non-interventionist doctrine, not merely extreme versions of it. Whether or not the US should go to war, should be addressed by candidates, not a doctrinaire party platform.

I hate to get off the current subject but, getting back to the original topic subject, I would like to point out something I have noticed taking place ever since the Nov elections.

Many people talked about "checks and balances", and a return to the checks and balances when and if the Democrats were voted in to take over congress.

While I think that most Libertarians don't believe two, big government parties in government would offer any more checks and balances than one, I want to remind you of two, major policies that have been brought up recently, both with Libertarian leaning results: The Minimum Wage hike and the Iraq War.

Have you noticed that both spent some time going in a Libertarian direction? Libertarians, in general, oppose both. And, thanks to the "checks and balances" - gridlock of the big two because neither of them can compromise - the minimum wage hike has stalled and support for more troops in Iraq doesn't have a great future.

While it would be better to have actual Libertarians in office, I think there is something to be said for the so-called checks and balances. Although the big two are opposite sides of the same coin, they are still opposite sides and each side wants more and more power. This leads to them being incapable of working together, when they each are equal in power, which will often cause government to do far less.

From a Libertarian viewpoint, I see this as a good thing.

Considering the exit polls showed that the biggest reason for the Democratic win was to check Bush and the Republicans - checks and balances - this should be noted as a good sign for Libertarians. It shows a movement toward more of a libertarian way of thinking from the people - a desire for more responsible government and one that won't be able to do quite as much as it has been doing in recent years. The mainstream is moving Libertarian and they don't even know it!

I think the mainstream should be informed of this as often as possible.

It appears to me that most people do not see the difference between politically motivated wars and cultural conflicts. The current military conflict, centralized in Iraq, is a primarily a culturally driven conflict. It is a world wide conflict being driven by extremists of the Islamic culture.

The vast majority of members of the Islamic faith more closely associate with these extremists than with members of the "other cultures/religions". Therefore, although they verbally denounce the extremists, they do not physically fight against them, they only try diplomacy.

Now, it is time for all of us who value individual freedom/liberty,to stand up and stop this evil threat to our culture.

I am an old man, so I will not see the final outcome from this earthly life, but I believe that I have a responsibility to my grandchildren and great grandchildren to leave them the same freedoms that I have.

To think that I can just ignore this threat until it militarily invades my country is like the perverbial Ostrich who sticks his head in the sand so he can't see the threat and if he can't see it, it doesn't exist.

Had a nice weekend out of town with the Mrs. Did y'all miss me?

Going way back in this thread:

Creech,
Whether you call aggressive international militarism "world police" or "vigilantes" is irrelevent. I am not arguing for a label, but a principle. These actions cause ill-will that cause the terrorism against us. Futher, it is very expensive to operate. If we had spent the military budget used for imperialist efforts on domestic woes instead, we could have rebuilt our southern states victimized by hurricanes many times over. PRIORITIES.

Timothy West:
I am delighted it looks like you get to stay with us longer than you thought. We need more of you. Every time you take a stand you DO make a difference in the world. Today it might only be one person, tomorrow it could be 20, but it is a positive influence just the same. We, as a group, need to do more "spreading the word" than the "crats." Since they outnumber us 10-1 or so, we need to be 10 times more active in the spreading. Which brings me to

Paulie:
http://www.freewayblogger.com/ is a nice site. Let's make sure all of us here hang at least one sign this week. I promise.

Nick:
I agree with your assessment about publicity and the issues we present. Now let's do something with those ideas.

Kevin Bjornson -

You apparently don't realize that non-interventionist libertarians were apart of the Old Right along with non-interventionist traditional conservatives. In fact, you can't be right-leaning if you support the Iraq War, or any possible conflict with Iran.

Barry Goldwater was a rare breed, being a libertarian hawk. I can say without hesitation that his hawkish foreign policy was the only repulsive part of his 1964 Presidential platform. The rest was just about right.

I don't think Jackson could be classified as a libertarian even if his economics were similar. The Trail of Tears is not avery libertarian action.

The War in Iraq is not a cultural war. The War on Terror is a cultural war. The War in Iraq is a ploy to make lots and lots of money by Cheney and Bush for them and their friends, and to kill Saddam Hussein because he tried to kill W's daddy. They just used terror themselves to promote it and they use terror themselves to continue it long after Saddam was overthrown. They reap the fortunes of attacking the wrong enemy using the right enemy as an excuse.

Nick; Your jealousy is showing. Your attacks on people you are jealous of, only exposes your own feeling of inadquacy. Spend a little more time analyzing yourself and less time accusing others. Believe me, there are enough people who hate Bush & Cheney, that if anybody had proof of your accusations impeachment would have happened years ago.

You are much more eloquent when you allow your intelligence express itself, rather than your emotions.

"You apparently don't realize that non-interventionist libertarians were apart of the Old Right along with no intervention isttraditional conservatives. In fact, you can't be right-leaning if you support the Iraq War, or any possible conflict with Iran."--Stan.

Aw, yes; any sign of dissent from the Rockwell line is due to ignorance. The above paragraph is a good example of the kind of counter-reality that a small fringe of American society seems to believe. It is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

The "Old Right" historically means Tory (British) or Federalist (American). Classical Liberals have traditionally been on the left, in opposition to monarchy and in favor of laissez-faire.

The Republican party incorporated elements of Federalism (strong central government) with what passed for laissez-faire. The GOP occupies the right side of congress.

Within this tradition, arose opposition to American entry into the First World War. Their political leader was Taft, but he lost to Woodrow Wilson due to the third-party campaign of Bull Moose Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Some libertarians saw WWII as a reprise of WWI. This was a factor in the near-extinction of the libertarian movement after Pearl Harbor.

Mises was no doctrinaire non-interventionist.Ayn Rand was even less so. After WWII, they almost single-handedly revived the movement. During the same time period, "right" came to be associated with hawkish anti-communist views toward the Cold War.

There is simply no grounding in the classical liberal tradition for the sort of absolute categorical anti-interventionism of the Rockwell sort. That's because we can't know "a priori" if any given country is or is not a mortal threat to America.

Please, join our discussions at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericanDefense/

Golferhal,

There is plenty of evidence that Bush was asking around Washington before 9/11 what the options were for a war against Saddam's Iraq. Impeachment never came in the last 6 years because the Republicans were on his side, if not for the war, for other things they wanted he could give them, such as approving legislation they pushed for, etc. The current Congressional leadership Democrats won't impeach him because they are cowards and it would probably die in the Senate anyway. Besides the impeachment process, they can't even decide to make any binding resolutions or legislation to defund the war. They think they will lose favor with their electorate if they do anything that can be construed as not supporting the troops, even if it would save their lives. The War in Iraq was conceived before 9/11 even if it was not carried out until afterwards.

And I have absolutely no jealousy towards Bush and Cheney because I enjoy being a good person. I wouldn't mind their money but I would never act like them to become wealthy. It's shameful. I analyze myself plenty. Do you? You seemed to have analyzed me to your satisfaction without any proof. How about looking at the real causes of pain and suffering in this world? Will you find those causes in yourself? Warmongering? Personal attacks on those that disagree with you?

But, thanks for showing up.

Kevin, let's not forget that the mortal threats to America are changing our country every day. Their called Congress, President, and Supreme Court. Any attacks from the outside are minimal. Not to trivialize 9/11 but the terrorists only get what they want if we are afraid. If they really wanted to just take lives at the expense of their own they could just come here every day and start shooting people. I'm more afraid that my own government WILL take away my freedom than I am from a terrorist attack that MIGHT take my life.

I feel that as a Libetarian I have the rights that most parties don't.It is so amazing to me that I am nice enough to be people and I love guns and yeah.

Kevin Bjornson said, "The libertarian movement almost became extinct after Pearl Harbor, because of the isolationist views of a few in the movement. Let us not repeat their mistake. The war against Islamist fascism is not a war we have chosen. We turn our backs on it at our peril."

Your factual statement is true, but your assignment of cause is much less certain. The facts are that the US and other powers were squeezing Japan in every way possible prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, so it was not at all as if we pursued non-interventionism before that attack, and suddenly were brought to our national senses.

Similarly, we were intervening in the world -- especially in the middle east -- to the tune of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars, when the 9/11 attacks occurred (not to mention the first attack on the WTC).

We were intervening; we made people mad or made them feel as if they were backed into a corner; they reacted. End of story.

This is not to say that the reactions were excusable, or that we didn't have the right to retaliate afterwards. But the American public both times believed (or was led to believe) that our passivity and non-interventionism set the stage for the attacks we received. It did not. It was in fact the interventionism we have practiced since WWI and before, which set that stage. But the non-interventionists took the rap, unfairly, then and now.

Like Mark B., I am no pacifist. We can and should be strong, and not hesitate to defend ourselves in case of attack or clear threat of an imminent attack. But I most certainly do not believe in interventionism. We haven't figured out how to bring true liberty to the people within our own borders. We have no proper business trying to force our will -- whether it is our definition of democracy, our desire to have a guaranteed supply of oil, or even our ideas of free speech and freedom of religion, etc. -- on other countries and peoples.

Whether for defense or offense, war is always the biggest threat to personal liberty, and libertarians must therefore always oppose it on that basis. The fact that war must sometimes be necessary for defensive reasons means that libertarians may have to tolerate war temporarily. But our defensive wars should be concluded as soon as possible, and civil rights fully restored afterward (assuming we win!). Isn't that what we are fighting for? The kind of open-ended "war footing" we have experienced for the last several years -- not to mention the succession of "police actions" since WWII, cannot possibly be tolerable to anyone who claims the label of "libertarian" with a straight face.

Setting the non-aggression principle aside, how can one possibly square aggressive war with libertarianism? I think the only justification that I have seen which has a chance of holding water is, "if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here." And that is probably true AS LONG AS WE PURSUE INTERVENTION AS A FOREIGN POLICY.

So that poses the question: if war is always bad for liberty, and if a policy of intervention promotes war, then what is the compelling reason to pursue such a policy? The people who refuse to answer that question, and who support interventionism anyway, are among those who shoulder the most blame for things such as the Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks (apart from the actual perpetrators, of course).

Kevin Bjornson -

You obviously subscribe to the neocon/left-wing readings of U.S. history.

First. The Old Right iwas and is also an American movement that included libertarians and traditionalc conservatives. In other words, it doesn't include you and people like you.

Anyway, World War II was inevitable after the British, French, and American governments imposed insane terms on Germany in the Treaty of Versialles. There was no way that Germany would be able to pay $30 billion in war reparations. Plus, Germany was forced to get rid of their navy and only have a military of 100,000 soldiers. Their economy was damaged, because almost all of the fighting took place on their soil. Germany's inflation was out of control. And, that country's population became so embittered by this situation, that they willingly turned to the s*it-heap of their political system, the Nazis and the Communists. Eventually, they became desperate enough to elect a tyrannical monster named Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he was the only one who was really able to promote himself and his party as the only ones who could regain Germany's former glory.

Kevin Bjornson -

Any war that we've fought after the War of 1812 was pointless. But, even the War of 1812 had a morally bankrupt aspect in that the U.S. government tried to occupy Canada.

The land in the West that Mexico held could have simply been purchased. Besides, the U.S. was a nation that was becoming wealthier and looking to expand. Meanwhile, Mexico was a poor nation that was desperately saeeking a way to pay off their massive debts. The U.S. government should have proposed a constitutional amendment to purchase Mexican land in the West, passed the bill, bought it, and gain ownership of it. The problem would have been solved with no bloodshed.

Kevin Bjornson -

The War Between The States was another war that should not have occurred. The southern states were right to secede since it was not in their economic interest to remain apart of the Union. If they stayed in the Union, then Dishonst Abe would have definitely raised tariffs on all imported goods (which he did, tripling the tariff rate). This would have been followed by other countries raising tariffs on all American-made goods (especially, agricultural goods from the South). This would have made it impossible for the southern states to export their agricultural goods, thereby causing the South to take in less revenue that they would have used in order to purchase better quality machinery from Europe (Britain, in particular).

On other issues, Lincoln stomped on states rights by taking unconstitutional measures that concentrated more power in the hands of the federal government; subsidized corporations that included banks, railroad companies, and manufacturers; and imprisoned all dissenters to his war without trial or investigation (including the city council and mayor of Baltimore, the state legislature and Governor of Maryland, Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, and many other northerners such as the grandson of Francis Scott Key).

Plus, his Generals Sheridan, Grant, Sherman, and Custer were the biggest war criminals of their generation. They set robbed, destroyed, and burned an outrageous amount of private property, encouraged their soldiers to rape the women of the south, expelled Jews from territories under their control.

Don't worry, I'll be back to tell you more facts.

Keep it coming Stan. You don't find this stuff on MYSPACE

Timothy West said, "Libertarians have a real problem expressing viewpoints that non libertarians can not only understand, but agree with and vote for. They have the world of principle in a fantasyland no one else knows or cares about covered, but the application of the stuff on the street is impossible. You cant sell 'all taxation is theft' to normal people."

That's not my experience. People pretty much get "there's theft, and then there's THEFT!" That is, even when you are talking about "real theft," which the person on the street understands, there is a difference between a hungry kid swiping an apple or an employee taking a few pens or paper clips from the supply cabinet, and a thug burgling a house or a CEO swindling investors. Everyone agrees that all of these things are "wrong," but some fall below the noise floor of practical, daily life. "Don't sweat the small stuff."

Where libertarians often to lose out, it seems to me, is in showing the connection between "the small stuff," and the "big problems," or in convincing people that things they have come to regard as "small stuff" actually are much bigger concerns.

I live in one of the most self-consciously, proudly "progressive" towns in Amereica, Santa Cruz CA. It is an article of religion here that it is not only practical, but RIGHT to force those who have to provide for those who don't. "All taxation is theft," certainly does not sell here. I am currently working hard to establish the idea that people should pay for the education of themselves and their children, as opposed to expecting fellow taxpayers (or fellow citizens from other states) to pick up the tab. After all, we by and large expect people to pay for their own food, lodging, transportation, and other necessities. So even if education is seen to be a necessity in a free society, it is 1) wrong for taxes to pay for it; and 2) demonstrably wasteful and ineffective for it to be controlled and delivered by government.

As you might expect, I am greeted as if I am some kind of heartless bastard, or three-headed monster by the staunch progressives. But even they cannot long whitewash the failure of the public schools and the success of private schools and home schooling (helping to establish point #2). I have a harder time convincing people that it is wrong to tax, or that voluntary funding mechanisms will substitute for taxation. The same people who would agree that swiping an apple from a storefront is wrong, or even that taxing for an aggressive war is wrong, actually defend the practice of taxing to support schools and other worthy projects, and express discomfort with the idea of leaving something as "important as public education" to the whims of charitable goodwill.

People are presold on the idea that there is going to be a government -- some kind of authority -- and that it is government's prerogative to, at very least, take money and seize property for its projects. This is not seen as theft because government is not only seen as a special case, but a great many people WANT to put their trust in government, and believe the best of it. Even many people who complain that govenment takes too much, or squanders what it does take, still extend that trust IN THE ABSTRACT. The fact that things which govenment does routinely would be criminal if done by a private entity, and are often judged criminal when performed by politicians and officeholders, doesn't give them pause. They keep hoping that good guys will grab the reins at some point and make things fair again. They fear constraining the current, mean-ol administration's power to do bad because they know such measures will likewise constrain some hypothetical "good" administration's power to set things right. Hope that the Philosopher King (or "righteous administration") will come seems to keep such people from taking the step of trying to understand what, exactly, separates taxation from theft and why.

For me, the best approach to this topic is to wonder aloud, "Isn't it funny that government does xyz, but if anyone outside government tried it, they'd be slapped in jail?" When someone agrees with me on that point, I follow up with "I wonder why that is?" And then I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes that leads to a deeper discussion. But sometimes it just leads quickly to the conclusion, "But that's just the way it is. Whaddya gonna do?"

"The facts are that the US and other powers were squeezing Japan in every way possible prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, so it was not at all as if we pursued non-interventionism before that attack, and suddenly were brought to our national senses."--James Merrill

Japan was in the process of conquering China, including Chiang's anti-communist forces, causing about 20 million Chinese dead. The US and allies declined to provide the raw materials for that process. I think that was unwise, in view of our unpreparedness. In any event, the force of our boycott was directed against western companies, and there was no blockade of Japan.

How come liber-doves invoke the sanctity of free trade and private property, but only when the US is involved? They have no problem with Saddam's nationalization of oil infrastructure within Iraq, and seem content with national socialism.

Similarly, the mass slavery of the South is overlooked, while the North's tariffs are more important in their eyes. Excuse me, but I don't think the right of free trade extends to what are, in effect, stolen goods; because cotton was produced with forced labor.

By the same token, I suppose one could argue that the US should have allowed the export from the US to Germany of Zyklon-B, if such had been necessary for the extermination ovens and the Germans willing to pay.

US merchant ships were harassed, and Americans enslaved, by Barbary Coast pirates before the US had much of a Navy and had not yet acted militarily abroad. More Europeans and Americans were enslaved by Arab Muslims, than blacks. There is still a slave trade in some Arab lands. In this case, I don't think free trade trumps human lives and liberty.

Narrowing the above exchange down to the specific topic of the civil war.

Slavery would have been done in the U.S. in 20 years tops from 1865. Had the South successfully and peacefully seceded, slavery would have been done all the sooner. Southern independence would have deprived the South of the operation of the fugitive slave law, which would have encouraged mass defections of slaves. Slavery was rapidly becoming untenable and the effects of the industrial revolution would have finished it off quickly. There was absolutely no need to slaughter 600,000+ men over slavery.

BTW, Illinios had the toughest and most onerous "black codes" on the books, long before the concept of black codes was introduced in the south.

"There is still a slave trade in some Arab lands."

Wow. Care to provide documentation of that one?

Nick; "plenty of evidence around Washington". Translation; I had to make something up. Your hate of Bush & Cheney is exposed totally by that comment. You have no evidence that anyone was asking around Washington ar any where else that Bush & Cheney were looking for an excuse for war. You and all of the other Bush haters just love to make up stories.

I am certainly no Bush supporter but it isn't because of Iraq, it's because he is a liberal.

Mark B. -

The Fugitive Slave Law only applied to slaves who escaped from their masters in the member states of the U.S., and therefore required for these slaves to be returned to their owners. By contrast, the law did not apply to slaves that escaped from their masters in the member states of the Confederate States. In other words, the slaves who left the Confederate States would have been treated in much the same way as Cuban refugees are when they reach land without being captured.

Mark B. -

Call me crazy but which famous "honest" President came from Illinois during that time?

When Abraham Lincoln was in the Illinois state legislature, he proposed an amendment to the state constitution in which all free blacks that were living in Illinois at the time would have to be expelled, and all free blacks from outside the state would not be allowed to enter Illinois. These were the goals of the Illinois Colonization Society. In addition, Lincoln was the President of the American Colonization Society. Their goal was to free all blacks only to send them to Haiti (a hotbed for civil unrest), Central/South America (disease traps), and Africa (which was both). In other words, they had no problem with blacks being free as long as they weren't free in the U.S. Classical liberal activists like Lysander Spooner and Lord Acton knew that lincoln didn't give a damn about black people and used this war as a means in order to pillage the South. Classical liberals would have preferred either the natural death of slavery, as stated by Mark B., or that the U.S. government use the British solution to slavery through gradual and compensated emancipation. The slaves would be freed, while the slaveowners would be compensated over time. Britian used this tactic and managed to get rid of slavery throught their entire empire in six years.

By the way, the New England States (especially Massachusettes) were the first ones to introduce racial segregation laws six or more decades before Jim Crow laws were introduced in the South.

There's a lot of historical confusion going on in this thread.

http://mises.org/story/2099

Hopefully that wil clear things up. Long, but well worth reading from start to finish!

Also see:

http://www.mises.org/story/2454

Warmongering goes hand in hand with big government on all other fronts, too.

Oops, try 2450 instead of 2454.

Although that one's good too.

I'm just glad that I"m not a coward.

What army did this 'Mises' guy lead?

From viewing all the comments he's made, it seems that Tim Crowley is a bit trollish.

I'm waiting to see "meow" pop up ad nauseum next.

Anyhow, all of this argument over Iraq and whether the hawkish or the dovish answer is most appropriate to libertarianism as a whole (non-interventionism vs. Imperialism), ignores the specifics of Iraq itself.

I am left wondering why it seems I am the ONLY one that sees this simple fact: Every *SINGLE DAY* we, the USA, remain in Iraq is a *VICTORY* for Al-Qaeda in particular and the fabled 'Jihadists' everywhere.

Why? Because Al-Qaeda in particular used *precisely* the same tactics against the USSR that it is currently endorsing/encouraging/cultivating within Iraq *and* Afghanistan against the USA.

There are many historians whom accredit the financial investment in Afghanistan as being pivotal to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Why does no one seem to realize that we're playing exactly into their hands?

Ian C:

Once again you are correct.

Tim Crowley -

The only cowards are those who support wars that have nothing to do with defense of the U.S. or retaliation for attacks on the U.S., YET refuse to fight it themselves.

IanC -

That's what the non-interventionists in here know. That is one of many reasons why we oppose the war in Iraq. This is Osama bin Laden's recruiting tool, which he thought would never be available since he over-estimated the intelligence of the Administration.

Paulie: Anarchism is nonviable and penultimately self-destructive! (There. I feel better; we disagreed again. :) )

Stan: While nominally correct, the 'recruiting tool' is most specifically NOT what I was referring to.

It is called "Economic exhaustion via military attrition." That is to say -- they're making us spend ourselves bankrupt on this thing. They just keep stirring up the bee's nest and eventually we will collapse under the weight of our own machine.
This isn't just about how *much* we're spending in and of itself. They are specifically using tactics to injure and wound us -- the same as was done to the Soviets.

Damned spam-blocker.

I *NEVER* hear this argument coming from non-interventionists, and it is quite frankly the most powerful argument there is against those who would say, "If we don't fight them there we'll fight them here!" specifically because it is TRUE. I believe the military higher-ups even know this. I've heard generals in televised broadcasts state that this is an aspect of non-linear warfare, by which terms we are losing. We are losing badly.

I will put it in simpler terms; by definition aiding a self-declared enemy of the state in acheiving his objectives makes one a traitor to said state. With this definition in mind: anyone who supports continued American presence in Iraq is a traitor to this country; is committing treason.

I.e.; Bush has and continues to commit Treason, an executionable offense. His only factual defense is insanity, which is impeachable. (The definition of insanity: Committing the same act repeatedly, each time expecting different results. I.e.; increase troop presence = increased violence. Response? Increase troop presence to suppress violence. Sane? No.)

That's not debatable. It is fact.

Ending my rant with this post. Sorry for all the repetitions.

From the beginning Al-Qaeda's goal in its assaults upon the USA has been to wound our economy.

Amongst their goal targets were the Trade Center towers and the NYSE. The damage to our economy from the destruction of the first is well-documented and irrefutable. If the NYSE had gone as well, it quite arguably could have led to a permanent shifting of wealth liquidity -- economic power -- outside of the borders of the US. Only the building's own innocuousness saved it, all conspiracies aside.

Having failed to achieve their goals despite having achieved their objectives on US soil, Al-Qaeda et al. have no further incentive to strike us here. For all the other rhetoric, no further assaults on US soil will occur. They are now seeking further non-linear assaults:

Bleed us dry in Iraq.
Destroy our ready access to global petroleum reserves. (not necessarily Al-Qaeda.)
Increase attrition in Europe; specifically utilizing the oppressed/isolated european muslims.

The latter represents the increasingly non USA-centric focus of these groups.

The simple truth is; if we were to merely back out of the Middle East, and shift our policies in no other way, we would find national security vastly improved. (I include support of Israel.)

Ian, what are you smoking? You are absolutely correct in everthing you've said in this entire thread - excellent work.

So whatever you're smoking, make it legal and pass it around.

Coach Jim -

I want first dibs. :)

I think the founding Fathers should have ratified the following Constitutional Amendment:
If any President (and Administration officials) displays blatant disregard through their actions for the U.S. Constitution (especially when it comes to initiating any policies - particularly, war - without Congressional support), then the Congress would be allowed to reserve the right to call on the military to overthrow from power, and these Administration officials in a court of law.

On second thought, just push for articles of impeachment.

"I *NEVER* hear this argument coming from non-interventionists, and it is quite frankly the most powerful argument there is against those who would say, "If we don't fight them there we'll fight them here!"

All true, but how about this: why would fighting "them" over there keep them from fighting "us" over here? In fact, wouldn't having more American troops and national guard overseas make it EASIER to carry out terrorism in the US, if it has any effect on that at all? If the logic of "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" works for one side, why wouldn't it work for the other side as well?

And, yes, it's the Islamic extremists biggest recruiting tool.

Lyrics from Immortal Technique (radio edit):

All they talk about is terrorism on television
They tell you to listen, but they don't really tell you their mission
They funded Al-Qaeda, and now they blame the Muslim religion
Even though Bin Laden, was a CIA tactician
They gave him billions of dollars, and they funded his purpose
Fahrenheit 9/11, that's just scratchin' the surface

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bull, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk sh!!, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms

"Ian, what are you smoking? You are absolutely correct in everthing you've said in this entire thread - excellent work.

So whatever you're smoking, make it legal and pass it around."

Except for the gratuitous dig at anarchism (yawn), I agree! And a lot of it has been very well put, too.

Paulie: I had to. :) That's a conversation we've had ad nauseum though.

Actually, the argument as to why "fighting them over there so we don't fight them here" works is because it supposedly invests them totally in their own region. That is to say, "they" get distracted by having to keep 'their' collective heads down.

I've heard this argument from otherwise quite rational people.

The thing that occurs to me with this rhetoric in particular is that it repudiates the simple concept that it costs less money to send an organized terrorist attack on our soil than it does to train a SINGLE U.S. Infantry soldier.

If 'we' (libertarians, non-interventionists, pacifists, people of reason, Klendathu-ites [points to the person who recognizes that one!]) are to succeed at this, we need something vitally visceral.

After all; the same people who make this argument are fixated on "Winning at all costs" -- so "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" holds sway -- and just pointing out how much it's costing us won't convince such individuals.

I've had it turned around to claim, "If we pull out it'll cost us even more. Here. Civilians." How do you refute that?

Just sharing some of the thoughts going through my head when I was off in rant-space. :)

Golferhal, evidence is only as strong as it's source, but this comes from within the Administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

I didn't make it up. It's entirely possible that O'Neill made it up, but that would make him a liar, not me.

IanC - Starship Trooper, the spider world.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158533,00.html
"The government of Saudi Arabia does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so," the 2005 Trafficking in Persons report said.

"We have domestic workers being brought in from many countries into domestic servitude, child beggars, a lot of beatings, reports of beatings and rape," said John R. Miller, the special ambassador for human trafficking.

http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Trade-World-Robert-Lamoureux/dp/B0001FGBPM
"This ninety minute documentary, filmed in 1964 and released on video in 1982, contains a remark at the beginning of the video that the slavery shown in the film still exists. The film proves its point. The filmmakers actually buy two African women from an African slave trader for 300 pounds apiece. They also show female slaves being bargained for in Saudi Arabia. Not all of the slaves are African.

Most slavery, as it has for centuries, originates in Africa and ends in Arabia."

(Kevin) The idea that slavery's economic inefficiency inevitably leads to it's demise is belied by history and contemporary news accounts.
Confederate apologists live in a fantasy world, and self-styled "libertarians" who side with them have no clue, either about ideology or the real world.

Kevin -- I'll grant you this much in your last comment; socialism is no more efficient -- perhaps even LESS efficient -- than is slavery, yet it remains somehow a viable option throughout the world.

Of course, I'm no "confederate apologist." The nation of the Confederated States of America was doomed to economic collapse and failure even without the Civil War of America.

Looking at this from another perspective, however, I am not at all certain that the Reunification was a good thing for history or for the American people(s).

If the CSA still existed, Bush would never have been President of the USA and would have, assuming all other factors neutralize one another until the CSA & USA existing together results in something resembling our world today, enjoyed FAR less authority as the President of the CSA; it had no federal structure per se.

Now, as to slave trade itself -- is that a legal or black market event? That question is rhetorical.

Coach Jim: Quiet you lousy ape! Heinlein is what got me into libertarianism. This would be why, despite being an almost total ascetic, I have an essentially libertine worldview.

Kevin Bjornson -

Your last comment proved that YOU are an apologist for the tyrannical and monstrous actions taken by Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer. YOU are the one who's living in a dream world.

I can say this with all honesty. John Wilkes Booth was a hero for killing Abraham Lincoln. It's too bad that he couldn't do it to his four generals as well.

It also would have been great if John Wilkes Booth managed to kill more Lincoln supporters that lived during that time as well.