Before you can reasonably look at it that way, you should identify the foreign aggression that you imply the iraq war defends america against. You should explain how the war is protecting or expanding our rights to life, liberty, or property. You should provide some support for your claim that it prevented America from being attacked.
------------------------------- Another way to look at it is that the military can be a collective defensive response to a collective act of foreign aggression. I can accept preemptive military acts if in the interest of protecting or expanding rights to life, liberty, and property. I don't believe in sitting still waiting to get attacked. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ma ni Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Non-libertarian act of Berkeley City Council Ger, I don't see how calling the military "criminal" is collectivist thinking. Isn't the military is the ultimate force for collectivism? I don't think me so labeling a collectivist group makes me collectivist. The military is certainly the RESULT of collectivist thinking, but me making that observation does not make me collectivist. If it did, any discussion of collectivism would be impossible. A critical discussion of a group does not collectivism make. Regarding your "few bad apples" and "no free will" angles: they could not be weaker, and ignore my previously provided evidence of guilt. ------------------------------- This sounds like collectivist thinking to me. Lets just take for granted that the army is constitutional, and perhaps 3/4ths of the function of a valid Federal Government, at least as defined by the framers of the constitution. Your argument below condems an entire institution based on the actions of a few. Just like Ted Kazinsky does not create a population of illegal mathematicians, a few people who might do bad things in an army uniform does not create an illegal military. Libertarians are individualists. How about you changing your argument to "Armies should not be legal". Sounds funny when you put it that way. Especially when you try to define an army. But perhaps you can find a reason for a policy, perhaps based on what individuals (the president?) would do with an army, as opposed to trying to blame an entity that does not have its own free will.
