liberty student: Ok, back up a second here. You mean that you were a paleo who become a proper libertarian? This totally undermines radicalism!
Ok, back up a second here. You mean that you were a paleo who become a proper libertarian?
This totally undermines radicalism!
As with Barr, I'd say you're conflating two different things. A former member of the military, or a present member of the military, or a paleo, or a conservative, or a liberal, or whatever, can become a libertarian. No one denies that, not even Niccolo. The question is what it means for that to happen. A former member of the military only becomes a libertarian by giving up the beliefs that allowed them to join the military. One cannot simultaneously claim, without contradiction "I am a former member of the military who became a libertarian" and also "the beliefs that led me to enlist are correct." In that case, they simply haven't become libertarians.
A paleo can change their mind and become a libertarian; they cannot do so without changing their mind. There is a difference between "I was in the military, I shouldn't have joined, and wouldn't have joined if I were a libertarian then" and "I'm a libertarian, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and listen to you put down the military." One is consistent, the other is not. One could say "I'm libertarian on everything else, but on foreign policy I am a militarist" without contradiction either - but that also wouldn't quite be enough to justify enlisting, given that posse committatus has been thrown out. The consistent statement would likely be "I'm libertarian on everything else, but I support foreign policy interventionism and the suspension of rights in times of emergency, as declared by the executive, and I'm enlisting." That would have no contradictions.
JAlanKatz: As with Barr, I'd say you're conflating two different things. A former member of the military, or a present member of the military, or a paleo, or a conservative, or a liberal, or whatever, can become a libertarian. No one denies that, not even Niccolo. The question is what it means for that to happen. A former member of the military only becomes a libertarian by giving up the beliefs that allowed them to join the military. One cannot simultaneously claim, without contradiction "I am a former member of the military who became a libertarian" and also "the beliefs that led me to enlist are correct." In that case, they simply haven't become libertarians. A paleo can change their mind and become a libertarian; they cannot do so without changing their mind. There is a difference between "I was in the military, I shouldn't have joined, and wouldn't have joined if I were a libertarian then" and "I'm a libertarian, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and listen to you put down the military." One is consistent, the other is not. One could say "I'm libertarian on everything else, but on foreign policy I am a militarist" without contradiction either - but that also wouldn't quite be enough to justify enlisting, given that posse committatus has been thrown out. The consistent statement would likely be "I'm libertarian on everything else, but I support foreign policy interventionism and the suspension of rights in times of emergency, as declared by the executive, and I'm enlisting." That would have no contradictions.
You've completely missed my point (which may or may not be my fault).
There is this notion that we cannot ally with the right, paleos, etc. but I think the evidence is obvious that people do defect from the right (and the left) to libertarianism, and until someone figures out how to clone BrainPolice, then maybe trying to forge relationships and work on common issues is not totally outside a libertarian's best interest.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
Juan: Equating military servicemen to government parasites doesn't sit well with me at all. The joke was in bad taste, especially on D-Day. Well, militarists pretending to be libertarians is a way, way, worse joke.
Equating military servicemen to government parasites doesn't sit well with me at all. The joke was in bad taste, especially on D-Day.
I couldn't agree more Juan. If you see any militarists pretending to be libertarians please let me know!
The issue is not with people changing from paleoconservative to libertarian. The issue is with the paleoconservative influence extending into libertarianism itself, so that libertarians themselves start moving closer to paleoconservatism rather than the opposite. That is the concern.
Len Budney: The USMC will keep you for a minimum of four years, pay you squat during that time, and forcibly reenlist you at the end of it through their "stop-loss" program. If you deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is virtually guaranteed, you'll almost certainly come home with post-traumatic stress, possibly bad enough to end in suicide. Dude, don't do it. --Len
The USMC will keep you for a minimum of four years, pay you squat during that time, and forcibly reenlist you at the end of it through their "stop-loss" program. If you deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is virtually guaranteed, you'll almost certainly come home with post-traumatic stress, possibly bad enough to end in suicide.
Dude, don't do it.
--Len
I agree with you.
I have changed some of my opinions since posting "America and Liberty", in which I defend almost all U.S. foreign policy since Washington crossed the Delaware. I have a new opinion: war in never worth the cost, nomatter how noble the intent, or how vile the enemy.
Take Iraq. Yes, Saddam was an evil man; yes, the insurgents are ruthless murderers; yes, the U.S. gives Iraqis food, medical care, and other benefits; yes, Iraqi women could vote for the first time in history.
But what about the cost? Thousands of U.S. troops killed. Innumerable Iraqi civilians killed. $3 trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer's money. Higher oil prices and a weakening dollar. A collapsed housing bubble, leading to more foreclosures and bankrupcies than ever before. A complete breakdown of law and order in the Iraqi streets, and an entire country ruined with radioactive depleted-uranium rounds.
And that is just the beginning. Expanded, Big Brother measures at home and abroad. 4th Amendment protections, weakened. Suspects held in prisons around the world, unable to get a fair trial. Torture. That is not what I was taught America was all about!
What about the effect on the troops? What about the ones who get arms and legs blown off, or the ones who get sick from agent orange or uranium? What about the ones who come home with psychological trauma from killing and from seeing the friends die?
War costs far more than we will ever know.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"We have thus stepped back from the position our ancestors occupied; for we allow under the flag of justice, and consecrate in the name of the law, what was imposed on them by violence alone."
Juan: Anonymous Coward: Oh, and for all you haters, you ever consider that someone may have had a life before they saw the light? Excuse me 'sir' but your first post in this thread was a thuggish defense of militarism. You don't seem to have changed your ways much.
Anonymous Coward: Oh, and for all you haters, you ever consider that someone may have had a life before they saw the light?
Thuggish defense of militarism? Oh, you're frickin' killing me here.
Did I state that if you talked bad about the good ol' Red, White and Blue I'd punch you in the nose? No?
What i did say is 'we'd be fighting' which could mean a lot of things. But, knowing myself as well as I do, this would mean that after the verbal lashing I gave you you would be so mad that you would start throwing punches...or end up crying, I'm pretty brutal when mad, this is why they would never let me talk to this neo-nazi POS that used to hang out at the bar—they knew nothing good would come of it.
If you seriously believe that you can go around insulting people without there being repercussions to your actions then I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, as they say.
Juan:It turns out that people who should be hanged for their crimes have the high moral ground while folks who point out that militarism is the opposite of libertarianism are haters
What crimes would that be?
Keeping the Soviet Union at bay so they didn't lash out as a desperate act of survival instead of quietly disintegrating? Restoring the monarchy in Kuwait after Iraq invaded? Acting as a deterrent in Saudi Arabia as a 'speed bump in the sand' when the only thing standing in the way of Iraqi domination of the entire Arabian Peninsula was a couple thousand US paratroopers?
Yeah, I'll give you that Gulf War II was an unjustified act of aggression which is why I'm hanging out here getting insulted by you closed minded fools instead of ensuring the safety and security of my family in this dangerous world I was born into.
I guess it would be preferable to be 'purged' after the conscripted Armies of Evil take over the world and the dictators decide they really don't need people with opposing viewpoints hanging about stirring up dissent then?
I wish I could live in y'all's dream world...
----edit----
Oh, and when did I ever claim to be a libertarian?
Brainpolice:The issue is not with people changing from paleoconservative to libertarian. The issue is with the paleoconservative influence extending into libertarianism itself, so that libertarians themselves start moving closer to paleoconservatism rather than the opposite. That is the concern.
Well then we better work extra hard to make sure that doesn't happen. But disengagement is a silly and fearful policy from where I sit. Those paleos are ripe for the picking.
We can't expect the conversion process to be one way.
Well then we better work extra hard to make sure that doesn't happen.
It already has happened, as a direct result of so closedly allying with the paleocons (a strategy encouraged by Lew Rockwell and company). This can be seen with respect to the immigration issue in particular.
But disengagement is a silly and fearful policy from where I sit.
Again, you're mischaracterizing what's being put foreward. Noone is saying to totally disengage from people in society. Only from political means and the state.
Anonymous Coward: Keeping the Soviet Union at bay
Juan:Have you ever noticed that the American military and politicians were partners of Stalin and handed him half of Europe ? Did the military bother to teach you that ?
What do you think should have happened, a continuation of the war to liberate Eastern Europe? Isn't that immoral according to your point of view?
No, of course not. We should have just stayed out of the war to begin with and tried diplomacy to convince Germany to halt their dreams of world domination and racial purity.
You should send me your address because I'd really like to visit this dream world you inhabit.
Juan:Haha. Right. So what are you doing here ?
Valid question.
Looking at the little box on the top of my browser it says 'mises.org' and not 'libertarian.org'.
I'm pretty sure the great Ludwig von Mises also didn't claim to be a libertarian which would put me in pretty good company IMHO.
You have us mixed up with pacifists. We all advocate gun ownership, after all. What libertarians advocate is not any more a removing of defense than the end of the US postal service would be a removal of any type of mailing. In fact, it would be a stronger and better force without all of the incompetence, inflated budgets (hundreds of billions of dollars over estimated market value), unaccounted for funds, corruption, and the constant world wide imperialism caused by political parties giving the military-industrial complex a monopoly on such "services." It's really no different than what makes the market work in other fields.
You have us mixed up with pacifists.
Well this is an interesting thing about the non-aggression principle. It's kind of neutral to such a question. A libertarian can be a pacifist, but need not be. The non-aggression principle recognizes both someone's right to be a pacifist and to engage in self-defense. The pacifist would fall into an inevitable contradiction in trying to stop someone from engaging in self-defense, since they'd have to initiate force. Likewise, one would violate the non-aggression principle by forcing someone to defend themselves or be defended. Personally, I'm not a pacifist.
We all advocate gun ownership, after all.
Well we advocate the right to own guns, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we personally advocate owning guns. That would be more of an economic preferance. Personally, I don't own any guns.
What libertarians advocate is not any more a removing of defense than the end of the US postal service would be a removal of any type of mailing.
True, and I don't think anyone here is implying that there should be no defense. The point being made is that the military as it exists is not based on defense. A soldier of the state is not really defending anyone. Their job is offensive, not defensive. They're also net tax consumers.
Anonymous Coward: I'm pretty sure the great Ludwig von Mises also didn't claim to be a libertarian which would put me in pretty good company IMHO.