[ModeratorNote: the split is between those advocating
USA govt interventionism abroad vs those opposed.
ACTUAL 'defense' is of course supported by libertarianism.
There is a difference of opinion on what constitutes
CREDIBLE as 'threat' AND what is appropriate as response.
Additionally, SOME opponents of interventionism are also
advocates of 'pacifism'
The historical break with Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)
was over USA military interventionism; specifically, at that
time, Vietnam. Traditional 'YAFers' ('Trads') being for
continuing the Vietnam intervention vs libertarian 'YAFers'
('Libs') being against continuing the Vietnam intervention.
ALL supported 'defense' but opinions differed on Vietnam.
-TLP ]
Steven, your premise "a libertarian case for war" is not correct.
You are presuming that libertarianism is consistent with pacifism,
which it most certainly not.
A brief history lesson. Despite common misconception David Nolan
DID NOT found the modern libertarian movement. That distinction, if
it goes to any one single individual, goes to Dana Rohrabacher who
headed the Libertarian Caucus of YAF in the critical years of 1966-
70.
Rohrabacher, as you are probably aware, is Pro-Defense, like his
pals Bob Poole and Jack Wheeler (two other individuals prominent in
the very early libertarian movement).
When the LP was founded in Dec. 1971, and in the first couple years,
libertarians were divided on foreign policy issues. Dr. John
Hospers, the LP's first Presidential candidate, could be described
much more in the Pro-Defense libertarian camp, than the Pacifist
side.
It was not until 1974/75, when Rothbard and Raimondo and the Radical
Caucus took control of the LP's platform committee was the "Anti-War
position" hoisted upon the LP in dramatic fashion.
Even long afterwards a Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by Mike
Dunn, and including Poole, Cliff Thies, and many other prominent
libertarians fought the Radical Caucus until the mid 1980s.
Your premise is off. If there is any "original" or "official"
libertarian foreign policy position it is that more closely aligned
with Rohrabacher rather than Rothbard/Raimondo.
--- In [email protected], "steven linnabary"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I totally agree we do not need religious intolerance in civil
> > conversation nor in our politics. That is why I will criticize
the
> > purveyors of Christian fascism as well as Islamofascism as well
as
> > Libertarian intolerance. They are all of the same breed. When
we
> > hate those with whom we disagree it invariably leads to violence.
> > This is precisely why I will point it out from all corners.
> >
>
> Libertarian intolerance???
>
> I certainly hope that nothing I've said is considered to be
intolerant to
> the point of violence (or the agitation thereof).
>
> I am, however, proudly intolerant of stupid wars (though not to
the point of
> aggression). I think that makes me consistent.
>
> OTOH, there are several people on this list who have failed to
make the
> libertarian case for any of our stupid wars. I'm not saying it
can't be
> done. I've seen a lot of my theories blown to hell with a good
libertarian
> argument (for and against copyright and patent laws, for and
against slave
> reparations, etc.).
>
> PEACE
> Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer
> Franklin County Libertarian Party
> (614) 891-8841
> P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115
>
> "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent
revolution
> inevitable" John F. Kennedy
>
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/
