Already Chuck Schumer et al are claiming that the decision does not preclude gun bans by type and the Brady Bill. Sigh. Listen to the mayor for tired, old rhetoric that we've all heard a hundred times before when such laws are repealed or when "shall-issue" permits are instituted.

Blood-baths, shootouts at high noon, the dead piling up in the streets etc. I am tired of it and don't really hear it anymore. Can't the gun grabbers ever think up something new?

I haven't read this thread at all, but I think that the right decision was made. People should be able to own handguns; states should have the right to impose some regulations on them.

I know the right thinks of him as a traitor, but I really like Justice Kennedy...he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

I initially misunderstood this to mean you thought heaven had institutional religion and a State. :eek:

Nope, just a random comment about those who are extreme at both ends of the issue. I'm sure ol' George doesn't give a damn about the issue any more.

I'm sure he doesn't care about anything anymore.

OH you mean he's a politician, radar?

Well, BrianR, my impression is no, they can't. Neither their mentalities nor their morals are that good.

Just remember, if you've ever harbored an antigun thought, you've entertained a pro-genocide one. A pro-genocide view strikes me as an immoral one.

In the end, persons unduly afraid of what guns might do to, rather than for, the citizenry ought never to be allowed into office.

Oh purleeease.


And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

Oh Dana.
You've just proved your genocidal tendencies.

The streets of your ward would run with blood if you had your way. I suggest you resign immediately to spend more time with your family.

Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

From AR15.com

Or you could be like Senator Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in the senate, and speak out of both sides of your mouth.


From http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (emphasis at the end is mine)
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.

Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.

Roberts and Alito sure weren't going to vote for the detainees. While tied to the administration, these guys were trying to define how long someone can be choked, not whether or not it's justice.

Kennedy seems to be the one most clearly looking at the issue outside of an ideological haze.

Maybe McCain the 'maverick' could find another Kennedy and keep it towards the center. However, he's making noises like he will cave and appoint another Thomas or Alito, ideological :censored:-kissers who love corporate freedom, but have difficulty with the messier questions raised by the Constitutional guarantees against government interference. Guns? Sure. How about porn, abortion, privacy, states rights to enact tougher laws than the Feds?

It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?

It might be worth voting for him just to see what happens.

That isn't necessary with one true pro-liberty guy as the swing. The conservatives can be wrong on their issues and the liberals can be wrong on theirs, but we can get good outcomes with one guy voting for freedom every time. It isn't likely to continue but it is possible.

There was absolutely NOTHING activist about this decision. The mention of a militia was to list one of the many reasons that the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

The term "the people" in every other part of the Constitution refers to individuals. The activists were the ones who were trying to twist the 2nd amendment to change "the right of the people" into "the right of those belonging to militias".

A right is something we're born with. It is something we don't need permission to do. We have an individual RIGHT to keep and bear any weapons we can obtain honestly. We are born with that right. No other person, group of people, or government has any legitimate authority to place limits on that right, or to force us to jump through hoops in order to exercise it.

None of those who voted with the minority on this decision or with the majority on the Kelo decision belongs on the Supreme Court. They are a disgrace to the court, and to America. They should be shot as traitors.

Specifically what power/authority did Alito and Roberts give to GWB?

The power for you to shut up.

It'll never happen in your lifetime. Get over yourself.

After a moment's thought, I must reply No. I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide. I think all in all, you'd prefer genocides stop, do you not? Well, this is the only known way how -- armed people don't suffer genocides. Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.

In my experience of the issue, spanning a couple decades now, there is no such thing as "duly afraid." There are those who volubly pretend such exists, but their protestations don't stand examination. The very potential for arms to cause the harm is the very potential to prevent it. It's not merely a wash, but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people. Especially so if you accept that the state crime of genocide (for it's very hard to get it done without the support of a state's power) is the very acme of uncivilized behavior.

Then my people must be a deeply uncivilised one.

I see no shame in knowing less than another about a subject. I would, however, contend that you are pulling your knowledge out of your backside and as such I don't consider your opinion to be more valid or worthwhile than mine.

How, precisely, have you halted a genocide? Since your contention appears to be that my ignorance has prevented me doing the same.

I know you are, but what am I?

Guns aren't a broad solution.

Guns simply give you two additional options.

When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?

The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.

The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.

The unarmed have no say in the matter.

I think your question is fair Dana, but you should keep in mind it is impossible to prove that you helped avert something that never happened. One can not prove a negative.

It's like the morons who claim we've had major terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to the insane policies of George W. Bush. One can not prove such a statement and even making such a claim is logically retarded.

It is like me saying that the paint on my house repels Bigfoot and saying, "Well you don't see Bigfoot at my house do you?" as a means of proof.

UG obviously can't prove that he has helped avert genocide. He can only state that he has opposed gun control laws which have been used in the past to disarm people so they could carry out genocide. On the other hand, one could easily contend that UG and Merc have both supported a very real torture and genocide in Iraq at the hands of Americans. I'd say a million dead Iraqi people who never posed any harm to America and who died defending their own country from a hostile rogue nation who invaded (The USA), or who were imprisoned and tortured without charges or valid cause, or whose families were broken up when soldiers kicked down their door, and took their only means of defending themselves, and allowed a stream of murderers to come in to Iraq.

Each and every single death on both sides of the Iraq conflict are the fault of the Bush administration and none of them were the result of defending America.


So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq. He'll most likely use the language that all tyrants have used when carrying out such atrocities like "liberating the people" or "killing a horrible dictator". But those are just empty words.

The invasion of Iraq was not done to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to kill a dictator who murdered his own people and rule the others with an iron fist. Even if it was to do these things, it still would not further libertarianism or freedom. Invading Iraq is nothing other than murdering those who were already victims of Saddam.

When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?

Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.

Speaking of knowledge pulled out of one's backside. More reliable sources say 93,067

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

More reliable sources according to whom? To you?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...25-401,00.html

THIS is the lancet study.

The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78


The numbers used to determine that more than a million Iraqi deaths can be attributed to the unconstitutional 2003 invasion takes the lancet study and extrapolates from there. There is no doubt that when you include the unconstitutional 1991 invasion of Iraq, the 12 subsequent years of bombing Iraq daily and keeping them from life saving medicines, the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq in 2003, and those murdered by the flood of terrorists America brought into Iraq, those who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death), etc. that well over a million Iraqi people are dead due to America's actions. More than double that amount of become refugees from their own country.

You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?

For the record, the site you linked to only counts CIVILIAN deaths and then only the reported ones.

Slow your roll girlfriend.

I was speaking specifically in reference to citizens being able to protect themselves whether it's from other citizens or a tyrannical government.

I'm marking today in my calendar. It took me nearly 40 years to be called "girlfriend". :)

I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering. :)

For the record, the Lancet study relied on reported deaths for its survey too, verifying deaths by death certificate.

What it didn't do, which would have been far easier, is just ask the people issuing death certificates.

If they did, they would have learned numbers similar to iraqbodycount.

Muslims are pretty anal about dead bodies and must handle them in proper ways. Remember that it took mass graves for Saddam to bury 100,000 victims. Where are the mass graves from 5-10 times that number? Where are the bodies?

Do you believe that 130,000 troops could disarm an entire nation, along with everything else happening?

Insert easy shot at the evil bastard Cheney here.

What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.

The battlefield? Less than a hundred thousand allied forces were killed at the Battle of the Bulge. (Most of them were buried.) To equal the number of deaths you're talking about would require 11 Battles of the Bulge.

Your last study says 48% killed by being shot, or about 500,000; 9% bombed with munitions; 20% car-bombed, about 200,000; yet there's no reporting from embeds, private citizens, Iraqi bloggers or anything from the military that indicates anything remotely resembling the sort of activity that could produce that level of carnage.

Both Lancet surveys were published during the national elections. The first one was released days before the 2004 election. Both were broadly and reasonably criticized. This last one is a fucking fantasy.

The Lancet Study's have been debunked as bull shit.

Such apologies have a thin tone from someone unwilling to destroy antidemocracies, liberate the oppressed, or improve the worldwide liberty count -- which, radar, is an altogether immoral and unconscionable position that amputates you as a libertarian. You're just not a maker of freedom, and you're not temperamentally disposed to become one. You desire, at bottom, too much to be an absolutist ruler. This may be why you left the Libertarian Party last year. Thus, I am called, indeed inspired, to jump all over you.

If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide -- or indeed on any acreage you don't personally happen to own -- you've got to find political advantage. That this should sometimes take the form of countervailing aggression against fascists should not trouble you for a moment. Yet, it does. While this logically follows from your starting premises, your starting premises don't allow any libertarianism to ever happen, particularly not in the places that would benefit the most from it.

This is, in two words, grotesquely stupid. Your mentality is thereby made altogether inferior, and it makes your morals suck worse than an eighty-stellar-mass black hole. So, I jump on you, hard. Often. Permanently.

Why do you live in such a lousy way? Be more like me.

Democracy does not equal Freedom. Also, invading nations led by oppressors kills those who were already victims. I am more libertarian than 10 million UGs combined ever will be. You lie about being a libertarian and try to misuse libertarianism a thinly veiled excuse to murder people.

Libertarians do not initiate force against anyone....PERIOD. They don't use force against anyone who isn't using force against them....PERIOD.

If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide, the only way to make it happen is to stop making enemies around the world, stop starting unprovoked wars against those who pose no threat to us, and to once again become a beacon of hope, liberty, and freedom to all. The only way to spread libertarianism around the world is for America to start living in a libertarian way so others can see that it is successful...and contrary to the twisted and warped fantasies of the clinically insane like Merc or pathological liars like UG.

The only way for libertarianism to spread around the world is for America to once again realize that we are the well-wishers of freedom and liberty to all and the champions and vindicators only of our own.

Sticking our nose into every dispute of every other nation, taking sides in those disputes, arming both sides, and making enemies around the world while violating civil rights in our own country (the foreign and domestic policy of the Bush administration) won't work.

The truly stupid are those who think liberty can be won by using these techniques. Starting wars doesn't bring peace. Initiating aggression will never bring about libertarianism. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a worthless piece of shit.

Hahahahahah.....*pauses to reread that sentence* ....hahahahahah.

:vader1:

I got a nice laugh out of that too.

The trouble with morons like Merc & UG (other than being pathological liars and virtually retarded) is that they are too dim witted to realize how wrong they are.

If I say, "I'm a vegetarian". It means I don't eat meat. It doesn't mean I eat some meat and not others. It means I don't eat meat. If I say, "I'm a vegetarian that eats meat", I'm lying. It's not a matter of opinion. If I tell them that they are lying when they make such a claim, and say that by definition, everyone who says they are a vegetarian is saying they don't eat meat, I'm stating a fact. It's not me pushing people around. If I say that everyone claiming to be a vegetarian but who eats meat is a liar, I'm also stating a fact.


The libertarian philosophy prohibits any initiation of force, especially for political gain or social engineering...like say spreading democracy, or toppling the leadership of nations we don't like.

Any pre-emptive wars, especially those which are not in our own defense, are absolutely 100% in direct violation of libertarian principles and also in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Libertarians want governmental powers to be very limited in scope and demand that our government adhere to the limitations on its powers within the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution says that all of the legitimate actions of the federal government must be one of the enumerated powers and nothing that isn't listed is legal for the government to take part in. It also defines and limits the scope and role of the U.S. Military as being for the "common DEFENSE" of AMERICA. It's not to be used for any other reason than defending our own country. It's not to be used for humanitarian aid missions or to spread democracy or to prop up the leadership of other nations or to topple dictators or overthrow totalitarian regimes or to spread libertarianism by killing all of the petty warlords around the world. The role and scope of the U.S. military doesn't include policing the world or enforcing UN sanctions or preventing nuclear proliferation.

Any use of the U.S. military to do these things not only violates the U.S. Constitution and common sense, it also is a direct violation of libertarian principles. Anyone who suggests that libertarianism can be spread through unprovoked wars like the war in Iraq is like someone saying that abstinence can best be spread through rape.

If you support the war in Iraq (or any war like it), you aren't a libertarian any more than someone who eats beef is a vegetarian. Again, this isn't an opinion, it's a cold, hard, and indisputable fact. Nothing anyone says to the contrary will change this fact. Nothing anyone says about me or anyone else making this statement will change this fact. If someone contradicts this statement they are lying. They are liars, and if they have already been given the truth and persist on telling this lie, they are assholes too. The asshole part is my personal opinion. The lying part is not opinion. It's a fact.

And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!

The trouble with you is that you support an invasion of the US and think you are always right while you want us to support your spawn. Leave me out of your little rants.

I wasn't dick waving. I was setting the record straight. If I were dick waving, you'd be a lot more impressed. And don't worry about packing heat. I never leave home without it. :)

Actually, what you're doing is staying crooked and rigidly xenophobic also, owing to your exceeding narrowness of view.

I don't see where it's libertarian to concern oneself at all with the continued life of the determinedly antilibertarian, id est the communists, the fascists, and other totalitarians usually describable only in terms of personality cults. My point has always been that they can't get in libertarianism's way if they are dead.

And none of us but radar over there really want them in our way. Radar's entire philosophical construct is designed for complete failure. I will have nothing to do with it.

You finally said something right. You said that you will have nothing to do with my philosophical construct...namely libertarian philosophy. You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the rational mind.

It's libertarian to concern ones self with the rights of ALL people, even those who have different beliefs than we do. I even respect the rights of a morally and intellectually inferior dimwit without the slightest concept of what libertarianism actually means.

Those living under a fascist or communist regime have all of the same rights as those living under a capitalist democracy. No more, and no less.

If the people living in North Korea want freedom, all they have to do is overthrow the leadership of that country to win it. The same is true for everyone else on earth. We have enough trouble in America trying to stop our freedoms from violated here to never have to worry about the freedom of others.

But I respect UG's right to volunteer his weapons, his money, and his own body to help oppressed people around the world to win freedom. As long as he doesn't try to use the U.S. military to do it, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with him killing people who haven't attacked him, and if he did something like that, I'd hope he was caught and punished without any help from America.

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they? That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before. I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it. You could stand to become more like me. I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation. You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral. If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either. Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzinggggggggggg...... :fumette:

:hedfone: Oooww, such language, from an intelligent, educated, worldly, genteel, Englishwomen. :lol2:

lol actually, I was just this minute thinking that the word fuck* has found its way into quite a few of my posts the last few days :P

UG is so used to lying, he doesn't even know when he's doing it, so once again, I'll shed light on his ridiculous lies and outrageously stupid claims.

Libertarianism isn't a hammer. Nor is it a gun, or any other weapon. Libertarianism is the recognition that everyone owns themselves, and they are responsible for themselves and for their own freedom. Libertarianism is about individuality. Libertarianism isn't about "spreading freedom", especially at the point of a gun. Those making claims that libertarian should be enforced through violence are violating libertarian philosophy.



You don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian, but you do have to believe that it is NEVER alright to initiate violence, especially for political gain or social engineering, like "liberating oppressed people" or "spreading democracy".

You are a living example that one doesn't need much brain cell activity to be able to make posts online. You aren't an improvement over anything, especially me. My political, social, and philosophical stance dwarfs yours when it comes to intelligence and the ability to work in reality. My stance provides the most freedom at the least cost in human lives and in dollars.

I concern myself with the freedom of all people, and don't try to misuse the American military or violate the Constitution to start unprovoked military action which is a gross violation of all things libertarian. America is the well wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of our own. This isn't xenophobic and it certainly isn't isolationist. War mongers always love to use these labels on those who would rightly use our military only to defend our own nation.

Your libertarianism is on a par with that of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. They all thought they were "liberating" people, and spreading freedom.

Nobody said that. I said you should be free to volunteer your help and I commend you for doing it. Just don't use the U.S. military or the U.S. government to help you do it.

Don't call me your friend, and stop lying about xenophobia. You have lied about this and many other things before...like being a libertarian.

No, your mind is crippled by stupidity, dishonesty, and war mongering attitudes.

In order to do that, I'd have to hit myself in the head with a sledge hammer until I was brain dead.

Which is why you aren't a libertarian. I consider human liberty the most important thing on earth. But before I volunteer to help others get liberty, I will try to earn it for myself at home. America is far from a free country and it's getting less so all the time. How about following the teachings of the bible and take the plank out of our own eye before we start worrying about the speck in the eyes of our brother?


It most certainly is if you use the U.S. military to carry it out, and if you invade a country that has posed no threat to ours. America has neither the moral, nor legal authority to police the world and enforce what war mongers have determined to be liberty. As I've said, democracy isn't freedom, and even if it were, America has overthrown democracies before and propped up dictators and armed them to the teeth.


False. It is moral for all people to fight for their own freedom. It is immoral for outsiders to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.


You are hardly a revolutionary. You are an anti-libertarian, war mongering, loudmouthed idiot who is dumb enough to think he's got the moral high ground when he advocates wholesale murder.

:lol2:

He could if he had an open mind, I must say that. Rusted shut is bad for anyone, regardless of IQ number actual or claimed, or of maturity stunted or in flower.

As for why you "fucking couldn't," I simply cannot find a reason -- nothing real, nothing substantial, nothing substantive, nothing anything. But what I emphatically NEVER try for is a mental clone. Uh uh. No way. Exact replication is by no means called for: I am not Radar, and not quite so impressed as he with my own individual genius..

I'm not left of center -- there's the aphorism that has quite a lengthy history, reaching back in one version or another to England in the early nineteenth century and evolving in France before coming back to England again: "If a man is not a ________ at twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a _________ at forty, no brains." The earliest English version had it Liberal and Conservative. It spent time in France being updated with every revision. DanaC and I are both over the age of, say, twenty-two. One of us is a Socialist. Is this, then, the why "I fucking couldn't?" Shrunken horizons, Dana, shrunken horizons. This American won't tolerate them.

Here's something impressive from LiveJournal for the Fourth of July that really neatly expresses the view of foreign policy that I hold and radar rejects -- at, I believe, his peril:

[emph mine]

And that bit of founding father philosophy will be something radar will predictably deny, reject, or prostitute his intellectual integrity to avoid seeing, because he doesn't think a free people should lift their littlest finger to free other peoples. Thank you, Xenophobia [and bad cess to you, stumblefuck].

The thread is here on LJ.

I have never denied that all men and women are created equally, and that freedom is for all people. Our founding fathers most certainly didn't want us to become involved in entangling alliances, or to use the U.S. military to win freedom for any nation but our own. This is not an isolationist or xenophobic policy. Claiming it to be is merely a crutch for those who can't defend their own position...most likely because there is no valid defense for war mongering.

I'd be willing to bet that I can provide far more examples of our founders being against the insane and idiotic foreign policy supported by non-libertarians like UG than he can find to the contrary. But since he wants to quote other presidents, I can include them too.

Let's see what people far more intelligent than UG have to say on the matter.





































It seems as though our founders all agree with me that using the U.S. military to start unprovoked wars to "liberate" others is insane...and so do the most influential people who ever lived, including the giants of libertarianism.

Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two.

Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations.

Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war.

========================================

May 6, 2003
Libertarians and War
by Harry Browne

I've been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq.

The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are:

1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.

The Threat

With regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101.

For example . . .

1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us.

2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?:

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

"His lips move."

The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq:

• claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA),
  
• saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)
  
• producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)
  
• citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons)
  
• giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors
  
• claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)
  
• referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)

. . . and much more.

Even if none of these falsehoods had come to light, libertarians should always be skeptical of any claims made by politicians.

3. Government doesn't work: The federal government has devastated what was once the best health-care system in history, it is trashing our children's schools, its Drug War has pulverized the inner cities, it has left chaos in its wake in Afghanistan. In fact, you'd be hard put to think of a single government program that fulfilled the rosy promises made for it.

So why would you think the promises of Iraqi freedom and democracy will be fulfilled? This is the same government that's messed up everything else. Just because "national defense" is Constitutionally authorized doesn't mean the government will handle it effectively.

The Defense Department is nothing more than the Post Office in fatigues.

And beating up a third-world country after disarming it isn't something any self-respecting country should put on its résumé.

4. Power will be abused: The President has been given tens of billions of dollars to spend on Iraq as he chooses. Do you assume he'll use it wisely, without a hint of corruption?

The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have been given enormous new powers to jail people without warrant and hold them without trial or legal counsel. Do you assume they will employ these powers only against America's enemies?

Do you really want to give government one more excuse to expand its size, its power, and its intrusions into your life?

5.Government programs never stand still: Every other government program has turned out to be far more expensive, far more intrusive, and extend into far more areas than proposed originally. Why should this war prove to be an exception?

Do you really think the regime-changers – after tasting the blood of innocents and the praise of the media and the citizenry – will go back to bickering about farm subsidies and school-lunch programs?

Or will they look for more "monsters to destroy" (as John Quincy Adams put it)?

6. Government is politics: Whenever you turn anything over to the government, it ceases to be a financial, medical, commercial, educational, or human-rights matter, and becomes a political issue – to be decided by whoever has the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.

Why should military matters be any different? Should we be surprised that companies like Bechtel and Haliburton have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq without competitive bidding?

Did you really think this war would be fought with no regard for political gain or abuse?

7. You don't control the government: You can look at the previous six items and say you would have handled some things differently. But who asked you?

No one.

And no one ever will. You don't make the decisions.

The politicians use your support as endorsements for them to fulfill their objectives, not yours – in their way, not yours.

That's true for health care, education, regulation – and it's true for military matters.

In Sum . . .

Government is force, and libertarians distrust force.

They know it will be abused, they know force won't produce the results promised for it, they know politicians will lie about the exercise of force, they know force will eventually be uncontrollable, they know that power is inevitably abused, and they know that no government program achieves its purpose and then goes quietly into the night.

On every count of libertarian principles, we should demand that the use of force against foreign countries be reserved for response to direct attacks – not to be used for "regime change," not for "democracy-building," not for pre-emptive attacks, not for demonstrations of strength.

Freeing People

The second argument offered by libertarians is that we should do anything we can to free other people from a brutal dictator.

I won't even deal with the fact that most of our knowledge of Hussein's brutality emanates from the U.S. government – hardly the place a libertarian would look for unbiased, authoritative information about anything.

I'll also ignore the point that, while condemning Hussein's brutal dictatorship, the U.S. government is aiding dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and many other countries. We shouldn't be surprised if we're told someday that we must go to war against those dictatorships, to free the people our tax dollars are helping to enslave today.

Let's deal instead only with the idea that we have a responsibility to free people in other countries.

Is it your responsibility to enter someone's home and beat up the man you believe is abusing his wife?

Is it your responsibility to go into a dangerous section of your city and protect people from drug gangs that engage in drive-by shootings?

You might say the Drug War breeds those gangs and shootings, and thus you're working instead to end the Drug War itself – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms of it.

Why then wouldn't you be working to end the causes of the profound anti-American sentiment that has swept the globe and provoked terrorist acts – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms by supporting the attacking of Iraq?


Responsibility

The answer to the question "Is it your responsibility?" is simple: that's for you to decide.

Each of us must choose for himself what he feels responsible for. If you believe you have a duty to help those fighting for Iraqi freedom – perhaps even to go fight yourself – you should be free to make that choice, and no one should get in your way.

But what gives you the right to make that choice for others?

Why should you have the power or moral authority to decide which countries I must free, which countries warrant extracting money from me by force, which dictatorships warrant provoking terrorist attacks that put my life at risk?

And what libertarian would believe that George Bush should have that moral authority – plus the power to compel all of us to obey that authority?

You will face the consequences of your acts and I will face the consequences of mine. But George Bush won't face the consequences of his acts; you and I will. Is that the way it should be according to libertarian principles?

I think not.

And thus there is nothing George Bush can say that will make me believe I should put my faith in him to decide how many innocent Iraqis it's okay to kill, how many countries it's okay to attack and invade, how many Americans it's okay to put at risk, or how many libertarian principles it's okay to violate.

The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

The founding fathers were indeed libertarians. In fact they were more libertarian than the people running the libertarian party.