Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "Pro-war" Libertarian argument
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, July 21, 2007

Interesting article in the WSJ which does a decent job of explaining diverging libertarian thought on the Iraq war although I'm not sure "pro-war" is a good description, although, "for this particular war" would be.

What Randy Barnett does is lay out why the differences between libertarians on this war or war in general don't necessarily mean one or the other side has diverged from libertarian principle as much as it means there is a divergence of opinion on the interpretation of that principle.
While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.
In other words, what is prudent and reasonable when it comes to self-defense, especially when that principle is applied to a nation, is where the separation among libertarians begins. And, I would assume, you can find a range among libertarians in which some interpret it as "war is never the answer" and others claiming "war is always the answer" (although I'd bet those on the latter end would be difficult to find in libertarian circles). To most, who recognize that the right to self-defense extends to nations as well as individuals, they would fall in the "war is sometimes the answer", and they would further caveat that by saying "and that always means in self-defense".

That seems, at least to me, to be the "reasonable" libertarian position. It is also the neolibertarian position. This is where we, on this blog, position ourselves (and if any of my co-bloggers disagree, they're more than welcome to add their disagreement to the bottom of this post).

We can argue extensively about whether the present war fits the principle or not, and have over the years, done precisely that. That is not the purpose of this post.

The purpose is to echo Barnett's point that it isn't unreasonable or unlibertarian to support war as a means to self-defense, to include wars on foreign soil. Barnett gives a good example in the divergence of libertarian thought based in the principle of self-defense as it applies to Iraq:
Many libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam's regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive in nature.

Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.
Pretty close. Something left out of the mix however is Afghanistan, which further pares down the "pro-war"/"anti-war" absolutist libertarians. The only way to oppose intervention in Afghanistan is to invoke the principle of isolationism because few, if any can reasonably argue that it wasn't an act of self-defense to go after al Qaeda and the regime sheltering them there after they'd attacked us and killed 3,000 people.

I think what you'll find is that most libertarians, whether they'll admit it or not, found that to be a righteous act, perfectly within the principle of self-defense. Of course there were some libertarians who didn't support that war, but I would guess that number is far less than those who don't support the war in Iraq.

If correct, and I think it is, that means that 'war' per se, isn't "anti-libertarian" for most libertarians. That, of course means that the libertarian split over Iraq isn't so much on principle but on interpretation of principle.

For those libertarians who support the war, this is part of the reason:
Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was "legal" cause to take military action against Saddam's regime—from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the "no fly" zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.
I don't really base my support in the "legal" aspects of the reasoning above (although I think Congressional approval of the use of force is a much more credible "legal" argument). Again, that has no particular bearing in the application of the principle of self-defense.

Mine has been based more in the threat I thought a increasingly bitter and powerless dictator, in a conventional sense, seemed to be turning toward a fight by proxy, those proxies being terrorists. Essentially I felt that if he could establish plausible deniability, he would strike by whatever means at hand at the US. And he certainly did little to diminish this theory and a lot to enhance it. His support of suicide bombings against Israel was one of those indicators of that probability, as well as reports of terror organizations (other than al Qaeda) based and training there. And, like every other intel service and country out there, as well as the majority of our elected officials on both sides of the isle, I believed he had WMD capability and felt he'd willingly use those through the terrorist proxies.

That, as far as I was concerned, constituted a very real threat possibility which needed to be addressed, and his continued intransigence and belligerence only served to give credibility to the possibility. Having been attacked and believing a proxy attack through Iraq to be a distinct possibility, I supported removing the threat as a matter of self-defense. Obviously the other side of the argument is he posed no real threat (that is 20/20 hindsight) and that we had no right to invade a sovereign country that posed no real threat. I'd only point out that "posed no real threat" was only clear after the fact, and not before.

Barrett goes on:
Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed. The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central "plan," but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach—and promptly replace its military commanders as President Lincoln did repeatedly—when it became clear that its tactics were not working. This prolonged delay gave the enemy time to better organize its resistance and, perhaps most important, demoralized those Americans who had initially supported the war but who needed to see continued progress toward victory to maintain their support.

Still, there are those pro-invasion libertarians who are now following the progress of Operations Phantom Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper. They hope that the early signs of progress in this offensive will continue, so that American and Iraqi forces can achieve the military victory necessary to allow the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people from terrorists, as well as from religious sectarian violence. They hope this success will enable American soldiers to leave Iraq even before they leave Europe and Korea, and regain the early momentum that led, for example, to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.

These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war—as Ron Paul does—and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.
Here Barnett pretty much nails it. The reasons for war, at this point, become moot. Good or bad, it's a done deal.

This isn't to say they shouldn't be examined and there shouldn't be recriminations for the war. What I'm saying is we're there now, it is obviously in our best interest to have a particular outcome as the outcome and that while we may not agree about whether or not the war was one in which we should have involved ourselves (whether on not it was actually a war of "self-defense") doesn't matter anymore.

Obviously all of us might have different ideas about Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But we didn't then. And as with all such endeavors, you act on the information you have. Yes, that leads to mistakes. And mistakes should be investigated. As mentioned, I have no problem with investigations as to why it happened the way it happened.

But that doesn't mean I also believe we ought to just throw up our hands and walk away because we're unhappy with the initial reasons for going to war. We can't turn back the clock and we need to recognize that success in Iraq is in our best interest regardless of how we feel about getting into it. That means making the best out of a bad situation and separating the anger and recriminations for getting us into this war from doing what's best for this nation's security now.

Anyway I've gotten much more deeply into that than I intended and I'm too lazy at this point to go back and edit this to keep it within the initial parameters of a sterile discussion of the interpretation of the principle of self-defense among libertarians. Lots of good food for thought, lots of fodder for conversation. Feel to discuss it in any manner you care too without worrying about being off topic (not that such a worry would hinder most of the regular commenters here to begin with).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
As an observor of this blog’s many regulars, including the bloggers themselves, it is my opinion (for what it’s worth), that most of you are economic libertarians, with just a dash of personal liberarianism thrown in, namely with regard to the Second Amendment and intoxicants. As economic libertarians, in most ways the Q&O regulars are just Republicans by another name. The other defining characteristic of this blog is its militarism. So when it comes to the Iraq War (and its more-or-less related flexing of executive power by the Administration), I would categorize the consensus here as authoritarian. Which, unless I’m missing something, is sort of the opposite of libertarian.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
So when it comes to the Iraq War (and its more-or-less related flexing of executive power by the Administration), I would categorize the consensus here as authoritarian. Which, unless I’m missing something, is sort of the opposite of libertarian.
Obviously I disagree with your assessment. I think you have never seriously considered (or perhaps understood) that we’re engaged in a ’war’ and thus mistake what you characterize as the ’flexing of executive power’ for the fact that in war there is a commander-in-chief and he has to make different decisions and use different powers that when we’re at peace. But then that makes you no different than any number of others who stumble in here, operating under the same mistaken premise and who choose to criticize what they’ve never understood and never will. And that goes double about your understanding of the bloggers here or libertarianism.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Kevin Drum is shocked, shocked that the WaPo would accuse Democrats of putting politics above security:
”Yes, you heard right. After four years of Republican insistence that Congress’s only role in the war is to pony up trainloads of money and then shut the hell up, it turns out that it’s actually Democrats who are making consensus impossible.”


The WaPo editorial said:
”...a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.”
The AP reports via special correspondent:
”Reid abruptly halted debate on the war once the troop withdrawal measure was scuttled. Several officials said he did not want any of several Republican or bipartisan alternatives to come to a vote. His objective was to deny a political escape hatch to any GOP senator who would not support the Democratic withdrawal measure. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss strategy

...It was only 13 months — and one election — ago that Reid was the one hoping to avoid a vote on a troop withdrawal. Then, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., angered Reid by insisting on a vote on a fixed withdrawal deadline of July 1, 2007.

...The plan drew the support of 13 Democrats. Reid was not among them, nor were the Democratic presidential contenders currently clamoring for the support of anti-war voters.
The public, it turned out, was more unhappy about the war than the Democratic strategists understood. ..."Now it’s the unified Democratic position," Kerry correctly e-mailed his supporters last week. .”
Now, Congress is supposed to represent the desires of those who vote for them. No problem there. However, playing politics by cutting off debate for cynical partisan political reasons; a debate which might result in a consensus bill on a decision as important as a troop withdrawal in wartime...

Are these folks the ones that one wants to be responsible for our Nation’s security?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Ooops! How about: Does one want these folks to be responsible for our Nation’s security.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Sloppy today. Left off McQ’s:
"...separating the anger and recriminations for getting us into this war from doing what’s best for this nation’s security now."
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
The Roman Empire never fought an offensive war. They managed to define their conquests all in terms of legitimate defense of Rome.

The problem when you start rationalizing the expansion of the notion of self-defense to include aggressive acts to protect against dangers out there is that the concept of self defense becomes utterly meaningless. When aggression becomes defense, all can be interpreted as defensive by appealling to a perceived threat — and the world is dangerous and interdependent enough to provide rationalizations in every case. Pro-war libertarians are being Orwellian in trying to call this defensive; better to embrace the more honest neo-conservative notion of unabashedly expanding liberal western ideals. I am pretty sure that will fail, but at least they aren’t deluding themselves by saying that aggression is defense.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Add to that an analogy:
There are muggers, drug addicts and gangsters with a tribal rather than modern western culture living in our cities. They will kill and steal if they can, and they have been able to penetrate the suburbs and at various times kill and rob. If they could, they would spread their gang consciousness over all of American society. Thus it’s war — we need to find these gangsters and kill them, without due process, even if at times a 90 year old lady or innocents get killed as well.

That’s the logic of taking a terror attack by one relatively small organization and falsely believing it means that we’re in some kind of "war" where innocent deaths, aggressive military action, and detention and even killing without evidence of crimes committed is allowed. The worst mistake after 9-11 is that we let fear and emotion cause us to pervert our values; libertarians who embraced offensive war strayed perhaps farthest from their values, not recognizing Iraq as less a war but more a big government social engineering operation with military power enforcing it. It’s time to reconnect with our values. Perhaps that means we can’t leave right away, perhaps we have moral obligations now due to our failures. But we have to start reconnecting with who we are as a people, and not let fear, emotion, and romantic fantasies about some ’world war 3 or 4’ mislead.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You see, Erb, there’s a bright line difference between AQ, Hamas, etc. and most inner-city gangbangers: it’s called citizenship. U.S. citizenship, not world citizenship. And an awful lot of us would be fine with due process, if libs like you hadn’t made due process settling the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

That alone disposes of your ridiculous analogy, so I won’t bother with the rest. Besides, I’m not selfish; let others have a shot at the fish in your barrel.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Those fish are long past due.

Notice how Professor Erb frames his comments to entirely exclude actual history in the Middle East - you know, treaties with allies who are invaded and the aftermath of that invasion. In the LN those facts just don’t exist because they do not support the LN. Also, note the fine technique of weaving into his narrative the "fact" that we went into Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. This sets up his slam dunk, you see. Very clever framing.
"That’s the logic of taking a terror attack by one relatively small organization and falsely believing it means that we’re in some kind of "war" where ... aggressive military action..."
"...we have to start reconnecting with who we are as a people..."
"Reconnecting"? Professor Erb and his ilk have never been connected with the America I remember and that he suggests that we reconnect with.

And, just for the record, I am not "engaging" the Professor.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
A Huffington Post story today shows a journalist coming clean about the LN. For those who are interested, it’s all there, in black and white.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
That’s the logic of taking a terror attack by one relatively small organization and falsely believing it means that we’re in some kind of "war" where innocent deaths, aggressive military action, and detention and even killing without evidence of crimes committed is allowed...
What about -

1993 World Trade Center (WTC) Attack

1998 Embassy Bombings

2000 U.S.S. Cole Attack

Do those count?

Or how about the averted attacks?

1993 Landmarks Plot

1995 Bojinka Plot

1997 Subway Plot

2000 Millennium Plot

You know Scott, the more you post here, the more I question what the hell you are all about. It is sad - sometimes you challenge me with things that make me think... but most of the time, you challenge me to make it through your post.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Counter-terrorism is different than warfare. That’s something counter-terrorism experts agree upon. War as a metaphor for counter-terrorism is misplaced. Also, compared to real wars, a few attacks with limited damage and a few plots is hardly a war. And none of those gives any credence to the idea that attacking Iraq was at all defensive. That is, to be very kind, a huge stretch.

Robert, no you are definitely not engaging. You’re not saying anything. But somehow you’re using a lot of words to do it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"And none of those gives any credence to the idea that attacking Iraq...
Yaaaawwwwwnnn! How 2003. Is anyone still talking about why we went into Iraq? Why?

Oh; because it is politically convenient for the Democrats. And, we’re not at war? Yeah, I remember when this was a big deal over Korea. Every single thing that had previously constituted "war" was there: military personnel dieing, bombs, rockets, bullets, etc. But certain political types maintained that it was not a "war". Nowadays, since there are no elections to be won on the point, it is simply "The Korean War".

What if we had not gone into Iraq, would Afghanistan still be a "war"? Nah, the Democrats (and Professor Erb) would be harping along just the same. The only thing that is an official war is when we dither so long that someone finally gets strong enough that they threaten the very life of the country and when they attack us we must expend huge amounts of money and blood to defend ourselves. Then it is, possibly, OK to go to war.

Sorry. No sale.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
No discussion whatsoever of the concept of "nation building"?

Not too long ago libertarians and conservatives were united against the idea that the US government could or should engage in peace keeping and nation building because they were improper uses of the military and pointless exercises in trying to make other people over in our own image. This was an idea that conservatives criticized heavily during the Clinton administration, with GW Bush elected on a platform of "no nation building".

Any discussion of libertarian opposition to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter starts with that point, not discussed here as of yet.

Libertarians in general believe in non-intervention and isolationism as first principles, those terms not just taking into account military intervention but the endless "soft" means of trying to manipulate world events through diplomacy and the like. The libertarian critique of the this war or any war starts with the examining how previous interventions and manipulations in the international arena have lead to the events.

This is very different than the American "liberal" position that stresses diplomacy as a means to manipulate international events in the favor of the US. The intervention and manipulation itself is at issue, not the means.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
No discussion whatsoever of the concept of "nation building"?
Not really ... that wasn’t the point I wanted to discuss. However it is a good question. And I’d say, despite my support for finishing up in Iraq (and yes, that’s nation building) I don’t support nation building as a policy. In fact, I’ve come down more on the side of punitive engagements if we must go to war. Act militarily, end the threat in the shortest time possible and leave. Let those left in the country or countries involved sort it out from there.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I have never been to this blog before but if the lead article is representative of its thinking then I would agree with the assessment by David Shaughnessy. You folks are Republicans who want to imagine that you are libertarians because it sounds cooler and offers a convenient rational basis for many of your policy positions. But when the rubber meets the road you are no more libertarians than George Bush or Bill Clinton.

Most of the wrong thinking on these issues starts from a single flawed premise: that we needed to declare (or were already in) a "war on terror" after 9/11. Al Qaida at that time (by most of the estimates I’ve seen) consisted of probably fewer than 500 individuals. Yes, they had the support and protection of the "government" of Afghanistan, but that would have been the basis for a war against Afghanistan, not a war against "terror." If we had simply charged the members of Al Qaida under the conspiracy laws, but had said we were going to round up and incarcerate them pending the possibility of trying them (which might not occur for several years — until we were able to completely remove their organizational threat to the ability of witnesses to testify), we could have done essentially everything we have done in this "war" outside of Iraq, and yet carried the world, including much of the Islamic world, with us. Moreover, that course of action would have been consistent with libertarian principles.
 
Written By: Bill Lane
URL: http://
I have never been to this blog before but if the lead article is representative of its thinking then I would agree with the assessment by David Shaughnessy. You folks are Republicans who want to imagine that you are libertarians because it sounds cooler and offers a convenient rational basis for many of your policy positions. But when the rubber meets the road you are no more libertarians than George Bush or Bill Clinton.
Well Bill, you can avoid being a shallow in your analysis as David Shaughnessy and do a little homework. I suggest you avail yourself of that opportunity prior to further comment. The archives are ready when you are.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"...when the rubber meets the road you are no more libertarians than George Bush or Bill Clinton."
And you, Mr. Lane (probable elite liberal progressive that you are) arrogate to yourself (guided by your pundits, of course) the right to determine conclusively when the rubber meets the road, right?



 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
If we had simply charged the members of Al Qaida under the conspiracy laws, but had said we were going to round up and incarcerate them pending the possibility of trying them...
Charge them? Imply incarceration? Possibility of trial?

Ummm, Bill, those empty threats were all used in the 90’s. And look where they got us. Please see the post above covering some of the actual attacks that occurred and those that were stopped. AQ has no fear of our legal system, and unless they are citizens of this country, we should not waste our time with them in our judicial process.

And, by the way, I’m pretty sure the terrorists are ’at war’ against us. Whether you are willing to admit it or not.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
And you, Mr. Lane (probable elite liberal progressive that you are) arrogate to yourself (guided by your pundits, of course) the right to determine conclusively when the rubber meets the road, right?
Actually Lane’s comments are those typical of doctrinaire isolationist libertarians who somehow feel the right self-defense is limited by shorelines and borders. No surprise, really, but certainly the usual doctrinaire refusal to deal with reality. And as expected, they sniff, look down their noses and call anyone who strays from the straight and narrow orthodoxy "Republicans in libertarian clothing". See my piece on "critical thinking" concerning such orthodoxies.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yes, McQ: A borderless war of indefinite duration. So, according to you, the Commander-in-Chief’s "extraordinary wartime powers" are unlimited in scope and override all, presumably including the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights. So that’s what libertariarianism means in today’s modern world! Who would have guessed?

Not to mention that the Bush Administration began with the premise of elevating the executive to a perch more resembling a monarch than a president. So the "war on terror" is just a convenient hook so that militaristic sorts like yourself will pliantly relinquish your liberties to the will of the godlike Commander-in-Chief. Sounds good to you now as a Neo-Republican (and Friend of Tony), but see how much you like it when President Hillary is making the executive orders and issuing the signing statements.

(Sorry for the shallowness.)
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Yes, McQ: A borderless war of indefinite duration. So, according to you, the Commander-in-Chief’s "extraordinary wartime powers" are unlimited in scope and override all, presumably including the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights. So that’s what libertariarianism means in today’s modern world! Who would have guessed?
That’s not at all what I said David. When you figure out what I did say and are able to respond to it in a cogent manner I’ll reply as well.
(Sorry for the shallowness.)
Apparently you can’t help it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually Lane’s comments are those typical of doctrinaire isolationist libertarians who somehow feel the right self-defense is limited by shorelines and borders. No surprise, really, but certainly the usual doctrinaire refusal to deal with reality. And as expected, they sniff, look down their noses and call anyone who strays from the straight and narrow orthodoxy "Republicans in libertarian clothing". See my piece on "critical thinking" concerning such orthodoxies.
Here are real concerns with your position:
1. If self-defense starts including aggression against other states, even ones like Iraq which was not a staging area for al qaeda (Afghanistan you have a strong case that can be included as defense), you’re on a slippery slope. Would attacking Iran be self-defense? Syria? Pakistan? Is it just a matter of finding terrorists somehow operating in or benefiting from that country’s policies?
2. When NGOs (that’s basically what a terror org is) declare war, what is the best response? Do you go to war with a non-state actor? How? That flies in the face of all legal definitions of war. Most counter-terrorism experts don’t like the metaphor of war because they think counter-terrorism is an on going series of actions, some military (though usually not invasion of another state), but most rather invisible. I can certainly see counter-terrorism as self-defense. That’s a way to justify dealing with the terrorist threat without having to call it a "war." Note: that accepts that self-defense does not end at our shore line, but deals with the very real problem that it’s a slippery slope to rationalizing wars of aggression just because of a potential threat. Remember: Rome saw all it’s conquests as wars fought for defensive purposes.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I am registered as a Libertarian, and consider myself as a Libertarian for lack of a better party. My biggest concern with the political philosophy as I have studied it since I was 18, has always been foreign policy and national defense. I happen to agree with most of what McQ and Mr. Barnett have said. Of course I believe the military involvement in Afghanistan was justified, but I also believe the involvement in Iraq was justified. I do not and did not base this on the moral grounds of liberating the Iraqis. I based this judgement on legal treaties that were openly violated by the Iraqi regime for more than a decade, and to this day I do not understand why this was not explained properly by the current administration.

A world where the ideals of governmental nonaggression and noncoercion could be applied across-the-board for eternity is great, but as Libertarians, this is our Utopia, and no Utopia worthy of the title will ever come overnight. Whether you agree with the many treaties and foreign actions that our nation has made in the past or not, I do believe that those treaties should be honored and enforced, and our previous foreign actions and resulting responsibilities accepted. Changes to foreign policy should be gradual.

My views probably leave me in the minority of a minority political group. I will now put myself into a smaller minority: While not ready to endorse full-blown conscription at this time, if we have another attack similar to 9/11 in the near future, I certainly would endorse it as a necessity.

I love the Libertarian philosophy, but in order to live it and have an opportunity to teach it to my children, there needs to be a strong defense against those that believe in a much different philosophy, and have openly vowed their lives to destroying ours.
 
Written By: Brandon HC
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider