You could try to start the F the Govt movement…many might well salute.

Merry Christmas!

From my perspective, the “moderate” reformers and so-called pragmatists are far more dogmatic and absolutist than most of the rank and file libertarians I know. But that’s a rant for another time.

My political philosophy can pretty much be summed up in three words: Fuck The Government.

You’d be surprised how easy it is to sell that message these days.

“I don’t think anything said here makes anarchy any more or less attractive.”

I agree. It is people like Holtz that make anarchy attractive because of who they are and the fact they seek political power. The only way to guard against clueless demagogues taking the reins of a powerful central government is to abolish such a government.

At this point in time, it is a hard case to make that we would be worse off if the federal government were to vanish tomorrow. I would never claim that would result in utopia, only that no federal government would be better than what we have now. However, unlike you, I don’t see the prospect of the government being redeemed through political means.

me: Yes, I spose so. I know I opposed it and it’s my conjecture that you did, too.

I share your skepticism of the conventional wisdom, FWIW. In my case, I have some skepticism about L dogma from the 70s. I’ve thrown off those shackles!

It’d be interesting to hear what conventional wisdom from the 70s L theorists that you’ve rethought, Professor Blanton….

What you imagine you have refuted by the words “Chicken Hawk” was not an argument against war, it was merely an argument against taking interventionists seriously when they call for going to war.

That Holtz dismisses the many arguments set forth here by many different people against his conjecture-based propensity toward interventions is an indication that he doesn’t take war and the costs of war seriously. He seems to think the universe spins around him when he insists on setting the rules and parameter of what he views as a debate contest.

It further cements my belief that Holtz is a seriously disturbed man.

Holtz, I’m not a member of your cute little club, nor do I recognize any rules you seek to impose. I’m glad you’ve chosen to reveal so much about yourself and I hope fewer people will take you seriously once they realize that you don’t wish to reduce the size, scope or power of government but merely want to reform it and adjust its priorities to suit your own misguided agenda.

It is people like you that make anarchism so very attractive, Holtz.

Me: I don’t think they have authority outside of declarations of war or treaties, so we probably agree here.

MR: Yes, it *says* We the People in the preamble, but where were the people in the process of development and adoption? Nowhere to be found. It was the states that joined together in a federal union, not the people.

Me: I respect the constitutionalist argument (which this sounds like), but I don’t buy it. The people were not involved directly in establishing either the states or the US. The people were MORE represented in establishing the US than they were in establishing the first 13 states. The basis for establishing the state in the US was not by popular referendum.

As for citizenship, the Constitution requires the US president to be a native born, so while some in the 18th and 19th centuries viewed themselves as “citizens” of states, I don’t find that compelling. The Constitution moved the US from a confederation to a federal system, admittedly one that evolved over time.

-p

Amid all the sound and fury, it’s not clear where Blanton thinks he’s disagreeing with the Club’s 11-predicate argument to justify deposing Saddam. Let’s give Blanton a Clubhouse menu of statements that actually dispute the Club’s predicates, and see if he dares to assert all (or any) of them:

* Saddam never provided support for terrorists who have targeted American civilians.
* Saddam exhibited no hatred for America.
* Saddam’s regime never admitted nuclear ambitions.
* Saddam’s regime never killed a million people.
* Saddam never defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates.
* In early 2003, there was no the existence proof in Kurdistan or Afghanistan that the U.S. military could depose tyranny in even less-modernized Islamic societies and replace it with reasonably stable self-determination.

Watch Blanton’s next response very closely. If he doesn’t assert any of the above sentences, he’s not actually disagreeing with the Club — no matter how desperately he wants you to think he is. The Club predicts that Blanton will find some excuse not to make any of these assertions.

And, per Club rules, Blanton is now the newest member of the Fair Weather Caucus of the Libervention Club. By wanting to dispute the satisfaction of the 11 predicates, Blanton is apparently abandoning the anti-interventionist moral high ground that would deny that intervention would be justified even if all 11 predicates were satisfied. Blanton apparently thinks that ground isn’t very defensible, and instead hopes to build his case on the shocking indictment that in 2003 there was non-zero overlap between what the Club believed and what Dick Cheney believed. Quelle horreur!

P.S. Blanton is confused about timing. The Club-endorsed 2007 article says it “was reasonable (but not necessary) for American liberty-lovers to decide to liberate Iraq based on the conjunction” of those 11 predicates. Thus that article obviously was talking about what was reasonable for people to believe in 2003.

Mr. Wilson says vaguely the Club “is looking for an absolute black and white solution”. The Club concedes that there is very little gray area between Saddam’s neck being snapped or not snapped. While we’re not sure how Mr. Wilson feels about Saddam’s neck, the Club is decidedly pro-snapped.

There might be a point in the Libertarian Utopia where it becomes necessary to intervene in the affairs of another but we are a long way from there.

Sadly many of the problems that the U.S. is dealing with these days have their roots buried deep in the historic problems of the European states and had we stayed out the world might be a better place.

That doesn’t absolve the U.S. of creating a mess in Central America or the problems created with the Spanish-American War and our attitude of Manifest Destiny.

Besides, what is the 9/11 Truth narrative? From what I’ve seen, there are many theories ranging from blowback to prior knowledge and from letting it happen on purpose to Bush planning and executing the attacks. There is no single 9/11 Truth theory to buy.

If you are looking for truth, you are a fool to rely on politicians of any stripe to lead you to it.

“We have a President now who opposed the Iraq II, and being President generally means one is part of the “establishment,” yes?”

Well, I guess that depends on the definition of “oppose”, yo? If by “oppose” you mean that he continues the intervention and voted for funding the intervention, then I suppose he “opposed” the Iraq war.

Capozzi continues:

“Of course, we should recognize that “truth” is often just opinion based on a limited fact set.”

Ahh, Mr. Capozzi now has a brush with reality. What he describes is often called “conjecture”.

Most interventionists are willing to gamble the lives and fortunes of others on mere conjecture, not so much their own lives and fortunes. They are even willing to spin the conjecture to convince others to go along with their interventions because they know most people aren’t willing to risk all on biased opinions based on limited knowledge.

Generally it is members of the establishment that sell a war to the citizens of a nation, as opposed to grass roots movements that insist that their leaders take the nation to war. This doesn’t mean that members of the establishment are monolithic.

To say that Obama was opposed to the Iraq war is conjecture. He was not in the Senate at the time, so we don’t have a record of votes to go by – only his word. His actions since becoming a Senator, and now President, don’t indicate any real opposition to the war. Of course, if you are one to cling to the establishment narrative, then he certainly “opposes” the war in Iraq.

I tend to pay little attention to arguments based on the establishment narrative or its twin, conventional wisdom. It has generally been my experience that it is not true or only partially true.

But, to each his own.

If the federal government is going to act outside of any treaties, where does it get that authority? Broadly enforcing UN resolutions does not seem to be the driving factor as Resolution 242 remains unfulfilled. Was there some treaty in place with the regime of Saddam Hussein that called for his forcible removal?

“me: Some constitutionalists make this point, yet the fact is the text DOES say “we the people,” not “we the people of the states….” Heck, even Lysander Spooner makes the same point!”

Who put the constitution together? Delegates elected by the people or delegates appointed by the states? Who ratified the constitution, a vote of the people or a vote of state legislatures? I think the only place where the US Constitution was put to a popular vote was in Rhode Island, where it was soundly defeated.

Yes, it *says* We the People in the preamble, but where were the people in the process of development and adoption? Nowhere to be found. It was the states that joined together in a federal union, not the people.

That’s why for a long time to be considered a citizen of the US was to be a citizen of one of the states. Up until the civil war and the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, it would have been said ‘the United States are a nation’ and afterward it became ‘the United States is a nation’.

The addition of the fourteenth amendment did not change how the US Constitution was developed and adopted, but perhaps there was a shift in how it, and the nation, was viewed in a legal sense.

Consider just seeking truth, regardless of whether it’s the establishment view (if there is such a thing). For ex., the establishment doesn’t buy the 9/11 Truth case. Many, perhaps most, Ls don’t, either, including me.

Of course, we should recognize that “truth” is often just opinion based on a limited fact set.

me: Hmm, the Constitution explicitly grants the FedGov the power to enter into treaties, so please expand on your point.

mr: It may be true that governments are constituted to secure inherent individual rights, but the federal government can only have the authority granted by the several states. Despite what the preamble of the US Constitution says, We the People really had nothing to do with its establishment. The several states simply could not have authorized the federal government to act on behalf of the people of the world as that is beyond the authority granted to them in their respective constitutions, at least to the best of my knowledge.

me: Some constitutionalists make this point, yet the fact is the text DOES say “we the people,” not “we the people of the states….” Heck, even Lysander Spooner makes the same point!

Saddam’s apparent threat to America, consisting of his
*admitted nuclear ambitions,
*hatred for America
*support for terrorists who have targeted American civilians;

Saddam’s record of aggression, in which he:
*killed over a million people,
*invaded one sovereign neighbor,
*annexed another by force,
*fired ballistic missiles at two more,
*defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates that Iraq was bound to obey as a 1945 UN Charter signatory,
*used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and
*used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on his own citizens; and
* the existence proofs we had in Kurdistan and Afghanistan that the U.S. military could depose tyranny in even less-modernized Islamic societies and replace it with reasonably stable self-determination.

Oh yeah, “we” fixed Afghanistan real good, bubba – real stable. Oh my, that mean old Saddam was a threat to America, what with his hatred and all.

Now, when the establishment claims Saddam was supporting terrorists who have targeted American civilians, does that mean room and board? Now, these civilians that were targeted were targeted for what? Junk mail offers for aluminum siding? Give us a hint – is this a Dick Cheney conspiracy theory or a Laurie Mylroie fantasy?

And what fear-mongering interventionist could resist the old “Saddam defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates” hobgoblin? Snap, Saddam must have smuggled his nukes into Syria inside his mobile chemical weapon labs. That happened after Saddam killed over 1,000,000 people. That would be 1,000,104 to be exact according to secret records that only neocons know about.

Sure sounds like establishment mushroom clouds being blown out of establishment asses to me. What’s amazing is that there is anyone left still clinging to this establishment rhetoric in 2007.

Blanton’s latest strawman: “It is even more rare to find a libertarian who clings to the establishment narrative as absolute fact”

There is no “establishment” whose narrative the Club accepts as “absolute fact”. (Where exactly does Blanton dissent from the standard knee-jerk antiwar narrative?) From http://knowinghumans.net/2007/02/my-iraq-mistake.html:

The Bush Administration’s first-order mistakes on Iraq have included:

Of all these mistakes, I shared only the last one.

As for “reconciliation”, re-read the last paragraph @106, and don’t assume the Club takes “libertarianism” as a synonym for “anarchism”.

Brad, “US military as world police” = strawman. This is a fallacy of the excluded middle between “always intervene” and “never intervene”.

The Club continues to be amazed that, after a thread of 200 comments, most anti-liberventionists here cannot accurately characterize the positions taken by the Club. The Club challenges Mr. Blanton to write:

* It is very unusual, to say the least, for someone who calls themselves a libertarian to not oppose all possible U.S. humanitarian intervention abroad, no matter how large the expected net savings in innocent human lives.
* It is very unusual, to say the least, for someone who calls themselves a libertarian to believe that America’s constitutional framework is exceptional in the history of human systems of government, and that the American people are exceptional in the standards to which they hold their government.

But of course he won’t. Because it’s not true.