You have essentially ignored by previous point. How about "unjustly warring with Muslim countries on holy day"? That's one that concerns me. How about you? Does it concern you?
I don't care who has advocated forcing liberty at gunpoint, whether it's Rand or Mills or whoever; the more-libertarian country has no natural right to forcefully enter a less-libertarian one and violate its liberties "in the name of liberty". It doesn't matter whether the less-libertarian country is the result of a religious or other type of ideology; neither gives the more libertarian country the right to invade them. Compare American families. Some families operate on a more libertarian basis and others on less. Do the former have rights to force their control on the latter with banners that proclaim "in the name of liberty" as their excuse? Hell no! You criticize the ZAP yet you also criticize unwarranted aggression and the Iraq War. While you may not want to admit that the Iraq War is based on the religious intolerance of America/Christianity or American ideology, you can not deny that any unjust war is a serious affront to the victim-country's liberty. Even if some radical elements within that country were responsible for previously attacking some Americans, under your own criteria the unjustified war on the whole country of Iraq makes America the less-libertarian country and deserving of attack or invasion or preemption by the military of any other country who deems itself to be "more libertarian" or "fighting for liberty" or "liberating people from tyranny". Are not the Iraqi people currently in need of outside help to be freed from the tyranny of American aggression? Even under YOUR own libertarian-foreign-policy (or "law enforcement") rational, there is no genuine ethic to stop any country from using the Iraq War as justification for bombing the hell out of America "in the name of liberty"? -------------------------------- You weren't specific, but let me guess the moral crimes of which you speak: recreational drug use, public nudity, holy day sales. Are there others that concern you? That short list applies to pretty much every culture and government of the world, be they dominated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, secularists, etc. Can you specify any moral crimes that are specifically due to American Christians? As for your second paragraph, I see that related to the difference between law enforcement and war. Within our own government and system of laws, we can pursue a harmful act through the police and courts. There's a similar situation when the US is dealing with other free and civilized nations, with which the US government can use diplomacy and treaty provisions to settle differences. (They say no two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war.) But when dealing with threats from uncivilized and corrupt governments, it often takes military action to solve the problem. That Muslim nations tend to be uncivilized and corrupt is not my fault. I didn't make them that way. Indeed, my tax dollars are being used in Afghanistan, Iraq, the West Bank, and Gaza in attempts to help them form civilized systems of government. I wonder if it's hopeless. As for evidence, there is plenty to indict the former leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq. I tend to favor Ayn Rand's philosophy that free nations are morally justified in discretionary use of military action against non-free nations, as long as the outcome intends to improve the situation for liberty. There is undoubtedly far greater freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq today than prior to US military intervention. If you worship ZAP, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I see ZAP as a potential threat to liberty, which I won't have for very long without military protection. From: ma ni Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Right here in America, that's where; where laws against "moral crimes" are based on Christian Temperance movements and beliefs in those pesky Biblical texts; AND where its war against Iraq is based on false premises. While it is true that religious prejudice between Christian and Islam goes both ways, just look at what is going on with those false premises; they indicate severe religious discrimination. What a silly question you ask; since you yourself have criticized the Iraq War - whose insufficient justification is far from mismanagement, but us engaging in the far worse prejudice. If a peon throws a rock at your mansion and you respond by sending your security force to break into his home and destroy him and his whole family AND TOWN, it is illogical for you to use his puny little act of prejudice to excuse your crime - which is not self-defense but a far worse act of prejudice. IOW, since the "evidence" you have so far supplied is insufficient justification for military aggression, going ahead with it only reveals (and consists of) the worse religious discrimination. Nothing could be more discriminatory than unwarranted military aggression, yet you persist with trying to advocate it and blame it on their puny discrimination against us. Does the lion try to blame his kill on the deer who threatened him, saying that deer have always been prejudiced against lions? HA! -------------------------------- Where do Christians and Jews use the force of government to discriminate against non-believers? It is imperfect but minimal. Compare with Islamic societies, and even worse, Islamist ones. The difference in bigotry is like night and day. I suspect you'll have a much easier time opening a mosque in Dallas or Sacramento than opening a church in Riyadh or Tehran. Don't forget to claim your Bible at customs when you arrive at King Khalid International Airport. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links
