Wow, it seems as though you've added 2 and 2 together to get 22. I do care about the liberty of all people in the world, but it wouldn't matter to me one bit if the people of Iraq fell off the planet earth. I wish freedom for everyone on earth, but even if every single person in Iraq died at the hands of tyrants it wouldn't be my problem unless it was my government being the murdering tyrant...as it is right now. If its thier own murdering tyrant, he's their problem.
My public servant....George W. Bush....is stepping out of line, and when a servant gets out of line, the master must take steps to get him back in line. It's not disingenuous or contradictory in any way to state clearly that I am the well wisher of freedom and liberty for all, but that I will not allow my military to be used to win it for them. At no time have I ever contradicted the NAP. You are merely attempting to stretch things further than the grand canyon to make a leap that doesn't land anywhere near the truth. I support using force against those who violate the rights, person, or property of non consenting others. This applies to those within my own country. To suggest this makes me an advocate of wholesale murder or "pre-emptive" wars in any way is not only laughable, it's criminal. If someone steals from me, trespasses against me, commits fraud or liable against me, murders me, rapes me, etc. they should face justice, and justice means using FORCE to enFORCE the law. There was no libertarian justification for the war in Iraq. There wasn't a threat in the slightest. There wasn't a danger. There wasn't any harm. There wasn't even a plan to harm us. There wasn't any connection with those who did harm us. America was in no more danger from Iraq than it was from Haiti or Cambodia. --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "3) What does the war in Iraq have to do with my discussion about > tariffs?" > > Simply that it is disingenuous to state, "I support using force > against those who violate the rights, person, or property of > non-consenting others.", when your previous statements indicate you > don't give a darn about the liberty of many others. If you meant what > you said, you wouldn't cling so violently to statements regarding the > absolute nature of the NAP. Support for the initiation of force > against those who violate rights, persons, and property is support for > the use of force to accomplish social and politcal ends. This is a > direct contradiction of the NAP. > These examples are used to highlight a lack of consistency in philosophy. > > And, of course, the Libertarian justification for war (any war), is > self defense. It is not a requirement of the NAP to wait for a > dictator to fully execute threats before eliminating that threat. > We can argue wheather threats made were credible and actions taken > were the best choice, but self defense is a firmly established > Libertarian principle. > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], <geofgibson@> wrote: > > > > > > "Your claims that I'm supporting the initiation of force are utterly > > > false. I support using force against those who violate the rights, > > > person, or property of non-consenting others." > > > > > > Unless they happen to be brown people in a country half way around > > the world, when, without a dubiously stated need for a previous > > declaration of war by Congress, it would be an illegal interference in > > a foriegn country's affairs, right? :) > > > > > > > 1) What does being brown have to do with anything? > > > > 2) I don't support the war in Iraq, in fact I consider the president > > guilty of treason for starting it (among other things), and have > > stated many times that the war is Unconstitutional, that nobody in > > Iraq is defending America, that all the soldiers in Iraq have violated > > their oath, that starting this unprovoked, unwarranted, and > > unconstitutional war makes America every bit as bad as Saddam....if > > not worse. > > > > There is no libertarian justification for the war in Iraq. > > > > > > 3) What does the war in Iraq have to do with my discussion about > tariffs? > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
