Since the beginning, libertarianism has ALWAYS been about non-aggression and military non-interventionism. It has been so since long before there any of those mentioned by Eric were born or even thought of. I don't know of anyone who said Nolan was responsible for the "libertarian movement", though he was responsible for the creation of the LP and the "world's smallest political quiz) aka the NOLAN chart (which is nothing more than an outreach tool to find those who lean toward libertarianism). Libertarians have been around for more than 1000 years, and they have never ever ever advocted wars against those who have not attacked us, or the use of force other than in your own defense. In fact many suggested we not return force when attacked, which is further than I'd go.
One could argue that Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Ghandi, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Alexis De Toqueville, Thomas Jefferson, and others were libertarian in their philosophy. --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [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" > <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> > > > > > > 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/
