Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 12:50 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. Perhaps undertaking regime change in the LP is necessary? Practicing shock and awe, with their spouses liquidated and the children raped and then beheaded, would be an appropriate response to their betrayal? Having his daughter's head returned to him in a box may teach the LP Chairman not to fuck with our liberty. Or maybe we should avoid injuring the rank and file leadership and only going for a decapitation of command? As Cathy Young put it, There are no supporters of liberty in foxholes. (Or something like this...exact quote below.) I expect Reason is celebrating the War on Some Dictators and Most Liberties. (Liberty has been vocally opposed to Shrubya's crusade, though.) --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. --Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
hi, Terrorism only increases.Saying meet fire with fire is only an anology.The whole world is against the war but they are all oppurtunists-they will strike only when they can.The war may do more damage even than all the oil it can get. Regards Sarath. --- Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. Uggh. So there are neanderthal Libertarians too. Bummer, I was expecting them all to have different opinions, but it's pretty obvious that we're creating more enemies and increasing terrorism. Oh well, I guess they all get to learn by experience. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
Eric Cordian wrote on March 20, 2003 at 14:35:45 -0800: Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. No libertarian will ever express support for slavery or forced servitude, except for punishment after due process for a crime committed. But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being lashed with the master's whip, you meant slavery as in the case of a man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a living wage now. -- Tom Veil
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: It would be great if the UN imposed sanctions on the US and UK and demanded they turn over their WOMD. And their leaders, including top generals, to the Hague. And given the very evident worldwide animosity toward the US today, I'd not be at all surprised to see a world trade boycott. I'm kinda suprised a boycott of US and UK goods hasn't started already. Seems lots easier than getting shot at in a protest march. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
From: Tom Veil [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. Or, Libertarians are people who think that the only legitimate use of state force is to protect factories from the angry populace that no longer wants chemical pollutants dumped in their drinking water. Let the market sort it out! But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being lashed with the master's whip, you meant slavery as in the case of a man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a living wage now. Holy crap. Go check out Haitian factory workers making Disney crapola. They'll work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and still suffer from malnutrition, because they can't afford the necessary food, and live in a corrugated shack. (That's the definition of a living wage, BTW.) If they strike (a commie uprising, I guess you'd say), the goon squads are sent in to beat up even women and children factory workers. Nice life they got there. Nice free market. Nice standard of living. Yeah, I'm a commie for wanting them to receive a living wage. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:52:30PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for those with excessive wealth or income, they're far more statist than anyone else out there. Yep -- their platform is extreme. Like I said, I'm not a GP voter. As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying technology, rather than using the political process.) Agreed, of course. The LP is marginal both because of its views (how many people would really feel comfortable getting rid of all taxes, which I recall is in the platform) and because of the wacky personalities of many of the people who are active in it. And, yes, there are plenty of decent, honorable people involved too. At best the LP and small-L libertarian think tanks like Cato/CEI/Reason/PRI/etc. can fight defensive battles. -Declan
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 07:32 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for those with excessive wealth or income, they're far more statist than anyone else out there. If the Greens were to ever to win control of the government, Washington would need nuking even more than it does now. As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying technology, rather than using the political process.) As for this drumbeat of support the troops even if one opposes the war nonsense, I say this is bullshit. In any case, magical thinking is for christers and other superstitious persons: what one thinks of the war or the troops is not causally related to what happens to them. I hope the war degenerates into a clusterfuck. This is not causing the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, just noting that if the U.S. secures a quick and crushing victory over the one-armed cripple (to paraphrase Eric Cordian), this will likely cause more adventurism and imperialism. And if the U.S. suffers heavy losses--though not defeat--it may cause Americans to think twice about trying to be the world's imperial power and beat cop all rolled into one. (The possibility of actual military defeat of the U.S. side I do not consider plausible.) The larger issue is the end of principle, on either side. Congress is sitting this one out, with even the Democrats debating the role of insulating plastic washers in interstate electricity transmission instead of considering the very serious issues involved in pre-emptively starting a war. (Senator Byrd being a lone exception.) And those who point to the heavy role of pro-Israeli war hawks in the Shrubya White House are deemed anti-Semites. Israel has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is in deep violation of many U.N resolutions...so why are they not taken out by some imperial power? And our strongest allies in the region are satrapies more repressive than Iraq...look to Saudi Arabia and compare it to life in Baghdad. But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France. --Tim May
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers. Makes sense, use Saudia Arabia as a land base to take over Iraq, then use Iraq as a land base to take over Saudia Arabia. Then watch all US skyscrapers fall from angry Colombians. Makes a lot of sense to W I'm sure. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
At 7:52 PM -0800 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France. One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. Uggh. So there are neanderthal Libertarians too. Bummer, I was expecting them all to have different opinions, but it's pretty obvious that we're creating more enemies and increasing terrorism. Oh well, I guess they all get to learn by experience. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. At 06:10 AM 03/21/2003 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till I hit reply). Now that congress has voted to support the troops it's time for a revolution in the ballot box. If enough of us tell the LP to get some spine, they will! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. -Declan On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what? It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site. That's run by the Libertarians. They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes. They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back to US soil, and keep them there. Hell, their platform includes eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the constitution orders! It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. That's for sure. With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment evidence. More like a miracle more likely. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
Declan writes: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. We've had this discussion many times before on this list. People who know nothing about Libertarians see a word which appears to share the first few letters with Liberty, and leap to the obvious but incorrect conclusion. Not only are real Libertarians not cuddly and likable, they are not even liked by other Libertarians. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. Libertarians and Unitarians have a lot in common. There are plenty of jokes about the moral wishy-washiness of Unitarians, such as the one about them living by The Ten Suggestions, or the one about a Unitarian hate crime consisting of burning a question mark on someone's lawn. Almost all of them apply equally well to Libertarians. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till I hit reply). Now that congress has voted to support the troops it's time for a revolution in the ballot box. If enough of us tell the LP to get some spine, they will! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. -Declan On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what? It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site. That's run by the Libertarians. They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes. They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back to US soil, and keep them there. Hell, their platform includes eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the constitution orders! It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. That's for sure. With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment evidence. More like a miracle more likely. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not oppose it
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: George Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Libertarian statement on Iraq invasion Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:38:51 -0500 === NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org === For release: March 20, 2003 === For additional information: George Getz, Communications Director Phone: (202) 333-0008 ext. 222 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Libertarians express concern for U.S. troops and urge quick end to war in Iraq WASHINGTON, DC - Statement by Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq: On behalf of the Libertarian Party, I wish to express our deep concern for the U.S. troops currently engaged in war in Iraq, and urge the government to end the conflict quickly and with as few casualties as possible. Though it is difficult for Americans who have never fought in battle to imagine a soldier's fear and bravery, it is easy to imagine the anguish that every family will feel for their sons and daughters who never return. For that reason it is essential that the government make every effort to minimize casualties on both sides in this conflict. Libertarians believe that all Americans should give moral support to our troops, and we urge those who are opposed to the war not to blame soldiers for the misjudgments of politicians. Sadly, this war may extract horrific costs not only from governments and soldiers but from American society. More terrorist acts may yet be committed inside our borders; relationships with our friends and allies could be forever diminished; and the financial costs of war could be catastrophic to an already stumbling economy. Because Libertarians believe in limited, constitutional government, we are disappointed that President Bush declined to seek a formal declaration of war as clearly required by Article I, Section 8 of that document. By acquiescing to the president, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as well. The Libertarian Party also urges the administration to abandon its plans for an occupation of Iraq - a policy that would further inflame anti-American sentiment in the region without benefiting the United States in any way. Though Mr. Bush promises that democracy will soon sprout from dictatorship in Iraq, the results of U.S. military involvement in Panama, Haiti, Kuwait, Afghanistan and other nations indicates that such promises are far easier to make than they are to keep. Finally, we would remind the nation that the traditional American values of peace, freedom, and military non-intervention have served this country well in the past and should be embraced again. To that end, we hope that our political leaders can summon the wisdom to bring our armed forces home from Iraq.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. WASHINGTON, DC - Statement by Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq: On behalf of the Libertarian Party, I wish to express our deep concern for the U.S. troops currently engaged in war in Iraq, and urge the government to end the conflict quickly and with as few casualties as possible. This is like opposing gassing, but expressing support for the gas chamber operators. Bush is a criminal. The war is a war of aggression in violation of international law, and the troops are criminals carrying out illegal orders. So let's drop the support for the troops canard. No doubt Bush wishes to do away with absolute national sovereignty the same way he did away with the UN. Though it is difficult for Americans who have never fought in battle to imagine a soldier's fear and bravery, it is easy to imagine the anguish that every family will feel for their sons and daughters who never return. It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
