The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Was fighting the barbary pirates good or bad?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 5 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
200 Posts
Points 3,020
Smiling Dave posted on Thu, Oct 29 2009 12:38 PM

Ive seen the good side to it, but I seem to remember there's an opposing, possibly Austrian, view.

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
Male
117 Posts
Points 1,785
Suggested by David G

The measures taken to fight the Barbary pirates circumvented the Constitution, and provided the basis for the President to send the military on expeditions that have little to do with the defense of the land.  Defense was thus changed to National Interests, an often vague and abused term.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,174 Posts
Points 24,320
Moderator

K.C. Farmer:
The measures taken to fight the Barbary pirates circumvented the Constitution

I wonder how you would substantiate this claim.

I am becoming a Burkean Whig.

          - F.A. Hayek

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
117 Posts
Points 1,785
Suggested by Wanderer

laminustacitus:

K.C. Farmer:
The measures taken to fight the Barbary pirates circumvented the Constitution

I wonder how you would substantiate this claim.

Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war.

I lay the blame on Congress first for accepting to the demands of the Barbary Pirates of paying tribute, and second by failing to declare war on an enemy that had declared war against the United States.  Instead, Congress passed a loosely worded resolution to permit the President to do what was necessary.  Jefferson essentially ordered military action in the form of war, first using naval warfare and then by landing armed forces to seize a city.  The effort went well beyond defense of American vessels.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
246 Posts
Points 3,515
Answered (Not Verified) Deist replied on Wed, Nov 4 2009 9:45 PM
Suggested by David G

When Congress declares war they simply are to say yes or no to military action. The resolution passed by that early congress states yes to military action. That early resolution was also nothing like the Vietnam War's Gulf of Tonkin resolution which did not say yes or no to military action but simply said it was up to the president to decide. That is how every war up to the second Gulf war has been decided by stupid resolution that says they will delegate the yes or no decision to the president.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
34 Posts
Points 320

KC Farmer: The US Constitution, as you may be aware, was largely a radical leftist document opposed by most reasonable and tolerant men of the day; its principles and the war that was fought to create the American empire preceding it led directly to the principles of democratism, deification of the Republican superstructure and the entire socialist theocracy which spread across the world like a plague.

To put it another way, who cares what is constitutional?

Given my reservations about the Constitution of the United States, and the American Federal Government it was alleged to provide for, I would have to say that combating the barbary pirates was one of the least sadistic actions I've heard of the USG engaging in.  I have no problems with governments preserving and expanding civil society by any means necessary (including war and colonization), but I do have serious doubts about the ability of democratic states to do so.

Frederick the Great
“I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.”
"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.”

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap