How do you argue for Thomas Jefferson as a libertarian? --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <ericdondero@> 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/
