From the Center for Libertarian Press Information, a release concerning the Afghanistan occupation.
As President Barack Obama struggles to come up with a new strategy for the undeclared war in Afghanistan, Libertarians urge the White House to adopt the only plan that will actually work: Get out.
“The occupation of Afghanistan became a failure the instant the goal changed from liquidating al Qaeda to pursuing meddlesome ‘nation-building’ objectives,” says retired Air Force lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served as a Pentagon analyst during the early days of the occupation and holds a Ph.D. in World Politics from Catholic University. “In its eighth year, the US occupation has not only failed to create a stable, democratic Afghanistan, it threatens to deliver nuclear Pakistan into the arms of the very enemy we went there to destroy.”
On Monday, Obama removed General David McKiernan as commander of US troops in Afghanistan. Obama also rejected the demand of Afghan President Hamid Karzai for an end to US airstrikes, which have led to hundreds of recent civilian casualties. Current plans call for an increase in the US troop presence from about 45,000 to 68,000 by the end of 2009.
The Libertarian Party’s platform calls for the US to “abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances.” Libertarians, it says, “would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.”
“The Afghanistan occupation costs the American taxpayer $2 billion a month,” says R. Lee Wrights of North Carolina, a member of the Libertarian National Committee. “That cost is rising, and the price in American and Afghan lives is unbearable. I abhor the idea of forcing my countrymen to pay in money and blood for a war which makes America less safe and the world less stable. It’s long past time to bring the troops home.”
–
Contact: Thomas L. Knapp | [email protected] | 314-721-3960
someone give JD a hug
Did you check in person, or were you just talking garbage, again, as usual? I’ve checked with my people over there, and they say that Ethiopian troops are back. Agence France Press and Christian Science Monitor both have articles in the last two days reporting on it. Not that you would care how many Somalis are slaughtered by your government’s Ethiopian proxies.
How’s that going for you, by the way, having your government hire other governments to slaughter civilians, torture prisoners, and lay waste to vast regions? It gives you bullies a sexual thrill, doesn’t it? Pervert.
1+1 = 10 for exceptionally large values of one. You really don’t know anything about math, and to pretend you do is just not working for you.
You do what, exactly, to support experiments beyond the state? Anything? Nothing that I’ve seen, heard about on the dark nets, or read. So, I’m calling shenanigans on this claim.
You seem to be suggesting that CIA agents are human beings. I’m not sure they qualify. Vermin, demons, pests, parasites. But humans? I dunno.
jd: Now, now. I said every one of them was a liar. Prove otherwise. Prove that any single CIA agent is always truthful.
me: here I must agree with you, kind sir. I can’t say I’ve met a PERSON who’s never lied. Based on that observation, it seems highly likely that you are correct about the subset of CIA agents.
Proving or disproving that seems an impossible task, yes?
Query: Have you never lied?
Sharing here, but I have, although it’s not my practice, and I feel bad when I have except when it’s a white lie.
I would like to meet the fully functioning person who has never lied. Must be QUITE a specimen.
JD, just to be clear, I support experiments in nonarchy. My point is that the “vacuum” created by no State — especially in modern times with high-speed travel — makes it quite unlikely that OTHER states will allow the experiment to run its course.
Surely a man of such scintillating brilliance gets that.
JD, last I checked, Ethiopian troops left Somalia. Perhaps Somalia will go back to being a petri dish for an experiment in nonarchy. I do wish the Somalians all the best, except the pirates.
Not that I care, I clarified my base 10 offhand comment in 51. Computers may use binary, I was talking about the construct of addition, which PEOPLE assume base 10. You — perhaps inadvertently — illustrate my point masterfully: for most, 1+1 = 2, but NOT in binary!!!
You probably know the meaning of metaphors, but it appears you have a hard time recognizing them. Linear thinkers have that tendency.
@112 “Ethiopia filled the vacuum, setting the Somalians back.”
You seem to neglect to mention that your government prompted the Ethiopians to invade Somalia and provided direct military intervention, including military advisors on the ground in Somalia, and including direct attacks by USA military aircraft.
And, how did that go? Last I checked with my many friends who live there, the “government” imposed after the Ethiopian occupation has been deprived of yet more territory. They are starting to call the “president” by familiar names like “mayor of Mogadishu.”
Since 1991, the Somalis have been without a unified central national government. The USA, the UN, and NATO have tried to impose a national gov’t on Somalia many times since then (eighteen or so attempts, as I count them). Why?
Well, you see, the former dictator that they overthrew borrowed a bunch of money. About $2.9 billion or so, with interest due. And he used that money to commit atrocities, like massacring 30,000 civilians in Berbera. Like having Dahir Riyale torture a bunch of Somalis to death in state prisons.
Now, the bankers want their money back. The IMF in particular wants about $300 million it lent to the former dictator to be returned. But, the position the Somalis take is that they didn’t borrow that money, and so the bankers should go see the heirs of the former dictator.
And whenever one of these UN-imposed “governments” sends around census takers, or tax collectors, they are killed. (What is the point of taking a census, except to find things to tax?)
Now, when you speak of Somalia, perhaps you could give us some details. When were you there? For how long? And who do you know who lives there?
Could you give us some current events in Somalia? Is the occupation by Ethiopia current, or a part of the past? Or do you know?
@84 “Despite your dislike for the CIA, that does not make every one of them liars and murderers.”
Now, now. I said every one of them was a liar. Prove otherwise. Prove that any single CIA agent is always truthful.
I did not say that every one of them is a murderer, you said that. I said most. I’m willing to suppose all, though, if you have evidence.
“It just makes you appear like you are unable to form an actual coherent thought.”
You are entitled to any kind of idiotic opinion you want to spew. I don’t have any difficulty forming coherent thoughts. I’m quite good at it. It is a sort of bizarre straw-man to say that my thoughts are all incoherent, since you wouldn’t bother to refute them if that were so. Silly.
“And no, the CIA never funded bin Laden or his fighters.”
You say that as though you believed what the CIA has to say about it.
“This is historical fact.”
So was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. So was the “attack” on the USS Maine. Politicians have lied and claimed it was “fact” and sent other men to die on account of their lies, and you prefer it that way, don’t you? You like a good war, and want to feel justified in waging one.
“No amount of conspiracy history revision will change that.”
I don’t have to revise history, twit. I just have to wait for the archives to open. Or the occasional admission by, e.g., the NSA in 2005 of the “Gulf of Tonkin” thing for some peculiar reasons of their own.
Speaking of lies, you know how many nuclear tipped missiles the Soviets had during the “missile gap”? As I recall the political argument, it was 500. As it turns out, it was six.
“Whether we like it or not, it was not stolen from the American taxpayer.”
Yes, it was. You can call it lemon meringue pie, but crap is still crap.
“Our constitution gives the government the ability to collect taxes and spend it as they see fit.”
Nope. It actually insists that the government only collect such taxes as won’t disturb the general welfare. Confiscatory taxes that disturb the general welfare are clearly forbidden. And the constitution is extremely particular about what things the government may spend money upon.
Which doesn’t mean that taxation isn’t theft. It simply supposes that by waving a magic wand what is immoral for an individual to do to his neighbor can be made moral by getting enough neighbors together. The men who signed the constitution (and I am not among them) had no authority to say they were “we the people,” and did not have my consent. They also had no power to delegate to the national government actions which were immoral for them to take as individuals. That you believe the constitution makes it okay to steal says a great deal about your character.
“That is not stealing, nor is it illegal until we change the constitution.”
It has color of law, but so does the cop when he breaks eleven of my bones, after handcuffing me, while I’m laying quietly on the ground. This doesn’t strike me as one of your finer arguments.
“Now please relate how the Gulf of Tonkin has a single thing to do with the CIA and bin Laden.”
What you claim is an historical fact now is going to be changed, later, when it serves the purpose of the government. Ten years ago you would have sworn up and down that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was an historical fact, and no amount of conspiracy theory would change it. But, it turns out, it never happened.
“This is another logical fallacy you introduced into the argument.”
It is not a fallacy. It is simply a point that you are choosing to believe what you are choosing to believe. I can’t make you believe that a million people in Southeast Asia were exterminated by Johnson and Nixon based on a lie. But it happened.
“Because they lied in one instance doesn’t mean the lie in all instances.”
But it does make you look foolish believing them, huh?
“It’s called an education. It seems you could benefit a great deal from one of those.”
Oh, sweetheart, how kind. I had calculus in high school, advanced physics, too. I graduated from an Ivy League college with a degree in American history, and I have an MBA from an exclusive private school in Houston. No, I wouldn’t say that I benefited much from “education.” But, do try to denigrate my educational background, that ought to be good for a laugh.
“Alex Jones is not always the best source of information.”
I don’t like the man. I disagree with many of the things he says. And I don’t recall having ever quoted him.
“Why would I care about the dead Soviet soldiers who were raping and killing innocent civilians by the thousands?”
I didn’t ask you to care about them. I simply noted that the Foundation or “al Qaeda” used CIA money to kill a bunch of them.
“Umm, no it really isn’t. It is what they are.”
What you are is a prostitute for military spending. You are a whore for anyone in uniform. And you love the slaughter of children in foreign countries. Which makes me despise you.
@82 “Somewhat strange you are more than willing to criticize the US government for being liars, but will take a group of disgusting pieces of garbage (Taliban) at their word.”
First off, they are human beings, not garbage. Second, I’ve lived in Islamic countries, and while I agree that some of their culture, especially the treatment of women and homosexuals, is reprehensible, I don’t call them garbage. I know that it makes you sleep better at night knowing that your military are exterminating the children of “garbage” so when you see their little faces obliterated by bombs you can feel good knowing they are only “garbage.” But I don’t think of human beings that way.
I criticise the USA gov’t because I live here. It is my job to hold them accountable for their lies. I happen to know a great deal about this culture and about the lies, such as the lies about the USS Maine and the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.”
It isn’t my job to hold the Taliban accountable. I don’t live in their country.
@49 And I lose all respect for Capozzi’s intellect. Computers do addition in binary all the time. Of course, 1 + 1 = 10, in binary.
@48 “We didn’t occupy Germany and Japan to defend them…”.
The word for what was done in 1945 was “conquer.” The United States conquered Germany and Japan to eliminate their ability to wage war. I certainly disagree on some of the methods (e.g., slaughtering entire cities of civilians – Dresden, Cologne, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) but the result was conquest.
The continuing occupation of those two countries has, in fact, actually, by your government, especially its state department and defense department, been justified as essential to defending those countries, on the one hand from Soviet aggression in Europe and Asia, and at other times from (communist) Chinese aggression in east Asia.
You do recognise that the occupation of Korea continues, to this day, by USA troops, on the grounds that they are essential to defend South Korea, yes? You might wish to supply me with some reason why South Koreans are, after 56 or so years, still incapable of defending their own territory.
Do you believe that it is the proper function of the USA government to militarily occupy German, Japan, and Korea? Please explain.
Sl, yes, it WAS hyperbole, and incorrect. Absolutes are virtually always that way.
I prefer to call it “hyperbole”, than incorrect.
But the core point still seems to be what you mentioned above “If you are making the point that the State often goes off the rails on many things, including justice and deterrence, you have no argument from me.”, which appears to target young, impressionable and frightened teenage girls.
PEACE
SL: You attempted to trivialize my comments with a link about a COP (who undoubtedly feels above the law) that was involved in disgusting kiddie porn. NOBODY here opposes this instance of civil penalties against purveyors of kiddie porn.
ME: btw, you again misrepresent. He was a former cop, out of the force for 5 years. Were you attempting to distract from the core point? To change the subject? Why not simply admit that you overstated rather than use transparent razzle dazzle?
It’s OK to be factually incorrect. Everybody does it now and then.
The cover up actually is worse than the crime!
I don’t really watch TV at all.
It’s been many months since I’ve watched anything on TV other than a few brief local news snippets featuring the LPWV.
sl, again, you said ONLY, a wild overstatement, to be sure.
If you are making the point that the State often goes off the rails on many things, including justice and deterrence, you have no argument from me.
As for not hearing of sexting, mea culpa. I don’t watch tawdry TV news, as I find it vacuous. I get my news from IPR, LRC, and other reputable outfits!
OK, I’ve never heard of “sexting” either. I like to think I live in this century, but perhaps not as much as y’all kids out there. 🙂
Me: Yes, I’d not heard of “sexting” before. On its face, that instance sounds ridiculous.
From Google:
Results 1 – 10 of about 2,380 for “child porn production”
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,420,000 for “sexting”. (0.07 seconds)
You have never heard of “sexting”?? Do you even live in this century??
You attempted to trivialize my comments with a link about a COP (who undoubtedly feels above the law) that was involved in disgusting kiddie porn. NOBODY here opposes this instance of civil penalties against purveyors of kiddie porn.
BUT:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml
This story makes it pretty clear that the people most often accused of disseminating “kiddie porn” are young girls themselves. And it has become a story in every community in the country!
PEACE
SH: Make that retrospectively, not retroactively
susan, you are quoting from the 7/8ths protected preamble and SoP, yes? A most unfortunate accident, looked at retroactively, IMO.
Still, a TAAAList can read those words and concur. For example, “… that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships…” sounds like a precondition to me…how about you? Last I checked, force and fraud have NOT been banished, not even close.
This justifies/explains my “asymptotic” stance. We Ls want to increasingly respect individual rights while unwinding the Leviathan AND while other, non-State peacekeeping mechanisms take the place of the State. As you can see in this thread, Mr. Knapp would seem to agree, at least in the case of prohibiting the production of child porn.
Where this PROCESS ultimately ends does get a bit vague, even among avowed anarchists, yes? But, it’s foolish to not recognize that social change IS A PROCESS, not a construct. More obviously, POLITICS is a process.
sh: You’re joking, right? Governments the world over are pushing guns at various thugs and thug-groups of Somalis, and YES, the people are only suffering more for it.
me: Strikes me, my darling Susan, that it is YOU that’s employing the sleight of hand here. I wasn’t referring to FOREIGN governments, but A DOMESTIC one. Nature abhors a vacuum, and — most unfortunately — States tend to dominate States and the stateless, particularly those innocent bystanders who happen to reside in the vacuum.
We may share a view that State’s are dysfunctional, perhaps even inherently dysfunctional. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that no State in a geography is less dysfunctional. For a while, our Somalian brothers and sisters were on the mend and showing signs of Stateless improvement. But then Ethiopia filled the vacuum, setting the Somalians back.
We’ll see how Milton’s grandson’s experiment goes, I guess….
My sense is that virtually all non-anarchist Ls don’t share your opinion here.
Too bad that they don’t agree with the LP’s Platform, then:
“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”
“Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
“We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual…”
Does it apply to the current Somalian Experiment?
You’re joking, right? Governments the world over are pushing guns at various thugs and thug-groups of Somalis, and YES, the people are only suffering more for it.
tk, yes, I agree a distinction should be made between “production” and “possession.”
sl: Well, the only people that have been charged with disseminating “kiddie porn” have been teen girls themselves, after taking pictures of themselves and “sexting” to friends.
me: Are you SERIOUS? A 10 second search “child porn production” elicits MANY hits, including this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/22/state/n070510D93.DTL
Your “only” statement is — I’m sorry — ludicrous.
SL: I have no idea why opposition to these charges would be “controversial” with anybody.
Apparently you don’t have a problem with putting teenage girls through the meatgrinder of the legal system, possibly destroying their reputations forever.
Me: Yes, I’d not heard of “sexting” before. On its face, that instance sounds ridiculous. Not what I was talking about…I was refering to adult producers of porn involving young kids…call me a “statist,” but I support laws that deter that sick practice. That’s certainly NOT “voluntaryism” in my book.
Bob,
Production of kiddie porn (assuming the kiddies in question are actually kiddies, i.e. not competent to consent) involves coercion (rape).
So no, wouldn’t agitate for repeal of laws against rape any more than I would agitate for repeal of laws against murder … and to the extent I want the state to be disappeared entirely, I expect that alternative non-state institutions would arise to deal harshly with such aggression.
Distribution/possession of kiddie porn is a different issue. If the crimes involved in producing it are unsolved, a case could be made for trying distributors/possessors as accessories after the fact. If those crimes have been solved, then if the victims want to distribute the stuff in order to get financial restitution for their victimization, I believe they should be allowed to.
tk: Why are you implying that I would push for repeal of laws against kiddie porn production at all?
me: hmm, I was using that concept that was controversial in L circles. I don’t know if you have a position on the matter. Do you? I do support laws against it, by a State if need be.
Well, the only people that have been charged with disseminating “kiddie porn” have been teen girls themselves, after taking pictures of themselves and “sexting” to friends.
I have no idea why opposition to these charges would be “controversial” with anybody.
Apparently you don’t have a problem with putting teenage girls through the meatgrinder of the legal system, possibly destroying their reputations forever.
PEACE
tk: Why are you implying that I would push for repeal of laws against kiddie porn production at all?
me: hmm, I was using that concept that was controversial in L circles. I don’t know if you have a position on the matter. Do you? I do support laws against it, by a State if need be.
tk: I am a “no particular orderist,” and I’m additionally a proponent of policy opportunism: Whatever we can get (as long as it’s something good), whenever we can get it (the faster the better).
me: Excellent! Personally, I’m AOK with Ls sometimes disagreeing on what is effective opportunism, and what isn’t. In this case, this release isn’t one, IMO; nor was National’s swine flu release…for different reasons.
tk: Part of getting what we can get is communicating about what we want. In that sense I am a “particular orderist” — I insist on talking about the issues the public already cares about, or at least is being told to care about by the “mainstream media.”
me: good judgment, IMO. I would say that SOMETIMES we should do our best to frame and set the agenda, hence my interest in promoting bringing troops home from Europe. Admittedly, it’s outside the box, but I like the positioning for the LP.
sh: I think you’ve confused ‘discrete’ with ‘vague’ and ‘ambivalent’. I can’t say I’m surprised.
me: nope, not confused on this one, Susan. I was riffing off YOUR choice of the word “vague.”
In my case, I believe it’s wise and discrete to not advocate legalizing crystal meth, though I do ultimately believe that it should be legal.
In my case, it’s wise that I’m vague about Kinsella’s take on IP. I’m not a lawyer. The subject doesn’t especially interest me. I have no firm position on the matter. I see some value in IP, but Kinsella’s point has merit.
In my case, it’s wise that I’m ambivalent about Afghanistan. I don’t support how it’s been waged, but the initial conception of stopping AQN I do support.
Sorry you find me impenetrable. I will try harder to help you understand my perspective, shaped as it is by Lao Tsu and Hayek. I sense you don’t get Hayek’s views on uncertainty and constructs and what not. Or, perhaps you reject them.
I look forward to YEARS of productive discussion with you 😉
sh: My point is that the defense of people and their property (although perhaps not of the nation-state) cannot be strengthened – and will only be weakened – by increasing government spending/intervention in that area.
me: Only? Have you conducted/read an empirical study of the matter? Does it apply to the current Somalian Experiment?
sh: that *anything* that people actually desire can be better provided by free people interacting voluntarily than by coercion.
me: I understand that that’s your OPINION, Susan, and you’ve a right to that OPINION. My sense is that virtually all non-anarchist Ls don’t share your opinion here.
If this is your standard for judging National, then I’d suggest you’ve set yourself up for failure. Since most Ls are not anarchists, it seems very likely that National will not pump out your take.
Perhaps National once was anarchist…was it? Has the LP ever advocated Acme Defense Co.?
Bob,
You write:
“Although you SAY you are a ‘no particular orderist,’ do you really mean that? Would you push for repealing laws against kiddie porn production as strongly as you would for exiting US bases in Germany?”
Why are you implying that I would push for repeal of laws against kiddie porn production at all?
I am a “no particular orderist,” and I’m additionally a proponent of policy opportunism: Whatever we can get (as long as it’s something good), whenever we can get it (the faster the better).
Part of getting what we can get is communicating about what we want. In that sense I am a “particular orderist” — I insist on talking about the issues the public already cares about, or at least is being told to care about by the “mainstream media.”
If the LP owned or already effectively dominated a cable news channel, a network of radio stations, and a chain of large city daily newspapers, we could be the ones telling the public what to care about. We don’t — which means that the best we can do is use the existing media establishment as a carrier for our statements, which means that we have to broadcast on ITS frequency.
…everything suggests to me that sometimes it’s WISE to be “vague.” It’s also WISE to be ambivalent and humble. Children blurt out whatever’s on their minds; adults learn to keep their own counsel, and to make a difference where they can, when they can, with virtuous motives, most preferably.
I think you’ve confused ‘discrete’ with ‘vague’ and ‘ambivalent’. I can’t say I’m surprised.
I can’t speak for National, but I find what appears to be your strategy ludicrous and wildly unrealistic. Yes, I do support some national defense for the foreseeable future.
I can’t recall ever speaking against defense, although I do avoid the term ‘national defense’, since I believe that what we ought to defend is people and their property, not nation-states.
My point is that the defense of people and their property (although perhaps not of the nation-state) cannot be strengthened – and will only be weakened – by increasing government spending/intervention in that area.
Here’s what the national LP office seems to not believe anymore (I won’t speak about your beliefs, since I find them basically impenetrable): that *anything* that people actually desire can be better provided by free people interacting voluntarily than by coercion.
sh: It’s got to end.
me: Oh, yes, is this intended to be an imperative command, or a suggestion?
If the former, I’d ask where you got the authority to MAKE such a command?
If the latter, again, I’ll take it under advisement.
sh: It’s got to end. Both the vagueness and the duplicity.
bc: I beg your pardon, Susan. Are you calling ME “duplicitous”? Where have I called for government to grow, on net? Or even in a specific line item?
I’ve seen many polls that suggest people still want government to be smaller. I’ve also seen many polls that were for ending the Iraq War. These are the BROAD questions that are at play, not whether IP should be abolished!
The sort of precision you seem to suggest…that every single government program should be severely reduced or eliminated tomorrow…no polling data there, to be sure. And, no, I don’t believe every program should be ended tomorrow, that’s true.
I can’t speak for National, but I find what appears to be your strategy ludicrous and wildly unrealistic. Yes, I do support some national defense for the foreseeable future. Yes, I do support laws against the production of kiddie porn and murder and fraud, etc.
On net, I would like to see government shrink in all areas. But I’m willing to engage in incremental steps. Like Ron Paul, I find some aspects of what government does as more offensive, some less, and some not at all for the foreseeable future or possibly in perpetuity.
You seem to be playing a word game that works in your mind. It used to work in mine, too, but with radical reflection, it’s apparent to me that that construct is extremely unlikely to gain broad acceptance. Mine is ALSO unlikely, but it has better odds, as practicality seems popular.
Tilting at the windmill of either the Anarchist (Hu)Man or the Lessarchist (Hu)Man seems silly to me, but with more Lessarchists, I do think progress can be made.
That’s all I can hope for. In your quiet moments of reflection, I do wonder what it is YOU hope for.
In the meantime, I’ll take your counsel under advisement, but everything suggests to me that sometimes it’s WISE to be “vague.” It’s also WISE to be ambivalent and humble. Children blurt out whatever’s on their minds; adults learn to keep their own counsel, and to make a difference where they can, when they can, with virtuous motives, most preferably.
Sticking to the message, being critical of Big Government across the board, is pretty compelling to broad sections of society TODAY.
I disagree. Show me one ‘broad segment’ of American society which is critical of (and would agree to cuts in) government ‘across the board’.
And by ‘across the board’ I mean NO increases in spending, and cuts EVERYWHERE.
I don’t think you’ll find that many.
Hell, those in the LP national office evidently think the government needs to ‘do more’ (i.e. SPEND more) on ‘securing the border’ from sneezing brownpeople.
I suspect what you – and those trying to craft a message in the LP’s HQ – mean by “being critical of Big Government across the board” is *actually* not true across-the-board criticism so much as vague Reaganesque big-government-is-bad rhetoric combined with equally vague lets-grow-government-in-ways-we-like rhetoric.
It’s got to end. Both the vagueness and the duplicity.
tk, one more thing: Were the day to come that Ls were actually sitting at the table, where decisions are being made, there WOULD be a need for more wonkish-types of thought INSIDE the party.
A discussion of where and what to undo would be far more relevant then: Europe, SK, Afghanistan, X weapon system; strategy takes on another flavor when you’re at the table, where the puts and takes become relevant.
Although you SAY you are a “no particular orderist,” do you really mean that? Would you push for repealing laws against kiddie porn production as strongly as you would for exiting US bases in Germany?
Or, would you prioritize and focus?
tk, near as I can tell, there are “levels” at which we meet the general public. At the broadest level, this model suggests soundbites that translate into: “fiscal conservative/social liberal/war averse” for the LP.
Since the LP is a retail operation, my view is this is where we should spend most of our efforts. Sticking to the message, being critical of Big Government across the board, is pretty compelling to broad sections of society TODAY. Add to that the corruption of the Rs and Ds, which is at this point common knowledge, and we may be at a watershed event.
The LP isn’t a think-tank or a C-4. This is one of the reasons I found the Iraq Exit Strategy wanting: Substance aside, political parties don’t do white papers. Political parties run candidates who speak in soundbites.
Your model of being influential is fine for a L Move On or C4L. That is, you seem to suggest a campaign on a single issue BY an institution. That’s not, IMO, the role of political party, which is to run candidates for elective office.
The best way for a political party to show it is serious is to run serious candidates. I’d suggest that’s the appropriate division of labor. Were we to actually start ELECTING people, that would be the optimal demonstration of seriousness. Spoiling could even be somewhat serious, as we’ve found with the unseating of Barr and the GA senatorial run-off.
My observation is that LP and now CLiPR press releases are mostly inreach vehicles…Ls talking to Ls. Nothing “wrong” with that, but not especially compelling for a political party that wants social change.
Bob,
“I think Ls kid themselves if we think we’ll be influential on this issue. At this stage, we’re too few in number to be consequential.”
Chicken and egg. Up by our bootstraps. We can’t become influential without attempting to, um, influence .
“Opining on a complex, complicated situation like Afghanistan sends mixed messages.”
By all means, let’s just stick to opining on simple situations with simple solutions that everyone already agrees on. That‘ll show’em what a serious political party we are.
tab, yes, well put. Procedure and methodology aside, the Afghanistan effort had an element of virtue — “moral high ground” if you prefer. I think Ls kid themselves if we think we’ll be influential on this issue. At this stage, we’re too few in number to be consequential.
Instead, I prefer to position the LP as war averse, but willing to defend aggressively the nation when attacked. I don’t see us gaining supporters for opposing one of the few military actions in recent history that had SOME righteousness to it. The LP is in a marathon for the hearts and minds of Americans, not a sprint. Opining on a complex, complicated situation like Afghanistan sends mixed messages.
“They might not have kept their end of the bargain, but it would have cost the US nothing (invasion prep could have continued during the affair — it was a matter of several weeks), and it would have kept moral high ground for the US.”
We had the moral high ground even with the invasion of Afghanistan. Many Muslims even believed the invasion was justified based on the Taliban’s willingness to help in the attack.
Then Iraq sort of ruined that.
@ #83 – “…9/11, the keystone of the police state.”
I would argue that the keystone to the police state is the war of drugs. While the war of terror has ramped it up somewhat, it is the war on drugs that has, for the past 30 years, brought the police state to the streets of your hometown.
Duuuuuh. Maybe it wasn’t provided for the same reason the bin Laden evidence Sec. Powell promised Americans was never provided? The same reason the FBI doesn’t list 9/11 as one of bin Laden’s suspected crimes? Because there ain’t any?
NATO thanks you for your support.
– When the Taliban government offered to turn bin Laden over if evidence was provided, that evidence should have been provided.
They might not have kept their end of the bargain, but it would have cost the US nothing (invasion prep could have continued during the affair — it was a matter of several weeks), and it would have kept moral high ground for the US.
We should dismantle the puppet government installed there. Then we should defend the territory from the remnants of the STATE. But we should not involve ourselves with the affairs of the Afghan people. Let the free market work!
Somalia hasn’t been working as well as it could due to one simple reason: the STATE. There are tribal remnants of the state being artificially propped up by foreign governments. It’s the only reason why Somalia isn’t living up to its full potential.
Dick Cheney appreciates your support.
sunshinebatman,
Not falling for every unsupported theory on 9/11 that comes along is not the same thing as simply accepting “the official line” on 9/11 as gospel.
There are some problems with the government’s account of what happened that day; not every claim precisely matches with the available evidence.
On the other hand, after nearly eight years, the “inside job” theorists have yet to make any evidence available for their claims. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. Not a crumb. Not an ort. Not an iota. Not a shred.
So, skepticism is warranted with respect to the government account, but the “inside job” theory doesn’t even rate skepticism. It’s still stuck at rating dismissal.
We shouldn’t be torturing agaents of the cia. Not even the ones who later became political operatives.
Even those members of the cia who could actually be found guilty of torture should not be tortured themselves. Of course, if found guilty, they should be punished. But, torture is wrong and the American people should act as such.
We must lead by example in the area of human rights, not descend to the lowest common denominator.
It’s fantastic that the “radicals” and the whatevers in the LP can all agree with Bush/Cheney/Obama/Pelosi/SITE/Dondero on 9/11, the keystone of the police state.
“Every CIA agent is a liar, most of them are murderers, some of them torture prisoners to death, and many of them slaughter entire villages. ”
Despite your dislike for the CIA, that does not make every one of them liars and murderers. I’m sure some definitely are, but throwing out hyperbole will not make your opinion correct. It just makes you appear like you are unable to form an actual coherent thought.
And no, the CIA never funded bin Laden or his fighters. This is historical fact. No amount of conspiracy history revision will change that.
“They stole that money from American taxpayers, first. It was not theirs to give.”
Whether we like it or not, it was not stolen from the American taxpayer. Our constitution gives the government the ability to collect taxes and spend it as they see fit. That is not stealing, nor is it illegal until we change the constitution.
“suppose you missed the part when the NSA released the facts about the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.””
Now please relate how the Gulf of Tonkin has a single thing to do with the CIA and bin Laden. This is another logical fallacy you introduced into the argument. Because they lied in one instance doesn’t mean the lie in all instances.
“As who knew it? You one of those CIA dogs who deserves to have his throat slit, slowly, in front of his children? Or are you one of the un-indicted co-conspirators?”
It’s called an education. It seems you could benefit a great deal from one of those. Alex Jones is not always the best source of information.
“Tell that to the dead Soviet soldiers. I don’t care what your intentions are, it isn’t your country, you should shut up about it.”
Why would I care about the dead Soviet soldiers who were raping and killing innocent civilians by the thousands?
“Warlord is a tawdry insult. In their clan culture, those are war leaders.”
Umm, no it really isn’t. It is what they are.
@15 “The CIA never funded bin Laden nor any fighters directly related to him.”
You say so, but I don’t believe a word you write. The CIA has lied since it was founded. Every CIA agent is a liar, most of them are murderers, some of them torture prisoners to death, and many of them slaughter entire villages. And then lie about it. And then lie some more. Every CIA agent should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and treason. Every one convicted should be killed. Those convicted of torture should be killed by slow torture, on television, and their families should be required to watch. There should be no illusions that these filthy scum did a job that they should be doing. They broke their oath to the constitution. Every last one of them.
“The CIA gave money”
They stole that money from American taxpayers, first. It was not theirs to give.
“the various internet conspiracy theories.”
I suppose you missed the part when the NSA released the facts about the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.” There was no incident. The entire Vietnam war and all those slaughtered American troops, a million or so dead and injured in Indochina, and it was all a lie. Now you tell me the CIA isn’t lying, and I say you are a fool.
“as we knew it until 1998.”
As who knew it? You one of those CIA dogs who deserves to have his throat slit, slowly, in front of his children? Or are you one of the un-indicted co-conspirators?
“was not intentional.”
Tell that to the dead Soviet soldiers. I don’t care what your intentions are, it isn’t your country, you should shut up about it. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
“easily told everyone a “stable” nation isn’t going to rise in that country.”
Then why does your country have about 100,000 effective forces including troops, CIA, delta force operators, contractors, in country, trying to stabilise it? What kind of idiocy are you supporting, you war mongering, baby killing, war profiteering thugs?
“It is a tribal country dominated by warlords and always has been.”
A warlord is a military person with civilian power. Your president is a war lord. He’s commander in chief of the military. The Queen of England is a warlord.
Warlord is a tawdry insult. In their clan culture, those are war leaders. Someone typically chosen by their clan elders. Someone they respect, unlike you.
““The Taliban were not sincere.” How do you know? Whereas you believe everything politicians in your country say? Nuts.”
Who said I believed everything my government says? That statement is not implied anywhere in my comments so it appears you pulled it out of nowhere.
Somewhat strange you are more than willing to criticize the US government for being liars, but will take a group of disgusting pieces of garbage (Taliban) at their word.
@41 “You’re not suggesting they be beaten with rebar!!!”
Who says I’m not? I say they can go to hell, and if they need help getting there, I’m all about the rebar, baby.
Technically, I believe that such occupations are clearly illegal, as the US constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to maintain a standing army. Since congress has not declared war, such standing armies are illegal, regardless of where they are stationed, on constitutional grounds.
“The Taliban were not sincere.” How do you know? Whereas you believe everything politicians in your country say? Nuts.
Haven’t been responding here because I’ve spent the afternoon and evening helping Allison to get the Motorhome Diaries guys bailed out of jail in small town Mississippi.
tk, well, I happen to believe that strategy counts. HOW the State’s undone is something we can control by choosing issues wisely, enhancing our chances for success.
You are correct that Afghanistan is the more current issue. That’s a strong point. A weak one is that many, including Ls, believe that there was some justification for the Afghanistan effort. That weakens the case.
Withdrawing from Europe is more an economic case, which IS a front burner issue. Odds are high that we’re on a course for a major fiscal event. It’s a differentiator. It’s non-threatening, common sensical, even.
Mr. Sipos,
My point was that using the term “occupation” implies a type of illegal or unwanted activity by the US. I was only pointing out that we are not illegally occupying either of those countries. We have military treaties that keep us there.
Yes, I agree many citizens in those countries do not want us there. I also do not disagree that we should not be there. I was only trying to make the distinction over the use of the term “occupying.”
Bob,
You write:
“I find the case to get out of Europe a bit easier to make, so I’d prefer to see that release first.”
I’m not a Rothbardian per se, but I am a “no particular orderist.” I’d like to see US military withdrawal from Europe and Afghanistan (and Korea, etc., etc.), and I don’t care which one comes first.
BUT:
A smaller, anti-establishment party is much more likely to be able to get its positions shoehorned into coverage of issues that are already on the media’s front burner — probably as a sidebar or extra paragraph to fill a column inch that needs filling to make the layout come out right, but mentioned — than it is to get the media to shift its attention to that small, anti-establishment party’s take on an issue that nobody else is talking about at the moment.
Afghanistan is on the front burner. Withdrawal from Europe, Korea, etc. isn’t. So, we’re talking about Afghanistan. We’ll talk about those other things a) when they’re already on the front burner, or b) when there’s not some other front burner issue that looks exploitable and we’re looking for something worth showing the flag over.
tab: we do not occupy Germany and Japan. If you want to say we shouldn’t have bases there then that is fine. But we are not illegally occupying those countries. We have formal agreements with the governments of those countries.
You jump from the issues of occupying to illegally occupying.
Either way, of course we’re occupying Germany and Japan. U.S. soldiers are there, taking orders from the U.S. government, for the benefit of the U.S. government.
That the German and Japanese governments allow this does not mean it’s not an occupation.
Many people throughout the world resent U.S. occupation of their countries, even if their governments have signed formal agreements to make it “legal.”
“After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the Taliban offered to help capture Osama bin Laden. ”
Jim,
Yeah, that would have been a great idea. Make friends with the people who sponsored bin Laden and let him carry out the attacks from their country. The Taliban were not sincere. It was just an easy way to stay in power and make money.
And as Thomas pointed out, we do not occupy Germany and Japan. If you want to say we shouldn’t have bases there then that is fine. But we are not illegally occupying those countries. We have formal agreements with the governments of those countries.
sh, I agree that we have an opening as the party of peace. whether afghanistan optimally illustrates anti-empire positioning, I’m not sure. Last I checked, Europe’s the bigger ticket.
The Ds soundbited this one better, calling it the right war.
That was their declaration of loyalty to the War Party, of which they are the leftwing.
Even from a simple tactical standpoint, there’s NO point to the LP softpedaling opposition to this *occupation* (not war). Pro-occupation peeps already have their choice of left pro-empire or right pro-empire. What the LP _could_ represent is _anti-empire_.
tk, your view seems quite sensible to me. I find the case to get out of Europe a bit easier to make, so I’d prefer to see that release first.
I greatly respect your position re Afghanistan, and the deaths there DOES seem to make it a greater priority on some levels. The Ds soundbited this one better, calling it the right war. Maybe it isn’t, but with limited resources we Ls (apologies to Susan, who says I’m merely a fellow traveler) have, the “bigger,” more persuasive conversation is about the expense of being “world policeman,” IMO.
Bob,
From my perspective (NOT speaking for CLiPr here), the questions are somewhat separable:
– Should the US have invaded Afghanistan?
– Once the US invaded Afghanistan, should it have resolutely pursued the liquidation of al Qaeda’s command and control infrastrure, physical infrastructure, and mass personnel, or should it have fucked around in the lowlands for six weeks toppling the old Taliban government and setting up a new US proxy government?
– Once either of the two objectives above were accomplished, should the US have stayed to “nation-build,” or should it have got the hell out of Dodge?
The release addresses the current situation and comes down on the “get the hell out of Dodge” side. It does not dwell on the initial decision to invade, nor does it substantially address the strategy of the invasion/occupation. Rather it just says “almost eight years on, it’s time and past time to get out.”
The Kwiatkowski quote does allude to the second question above, but that’s not the point of the release.
If you want to discuss the first two points we can … but keep in mind that they’re not especially germane to the gravamen of the release itself.
In MY opinion (not CLiPr’s opinion, and not argued as being LP doctrine):
– When the Taliban government offered to turn bin Laden over if evidence was provided, that evidence should have been provided.
They might not have kept their end of the bargain, but it would have cost the US nothing (invasion prep could have continued during the affair — it was a matter of several weeks), and it would have kept moral high ground for the US. If OBL had gone to ground in Canada, they would have demanded not only evidence but a guarantee of no death penalty, and the US would have likely complied or been told to go pound sand, too.
– If it ultimately came to invasion, that invasion should have been resolutely centered on al Qaeda, not on “bringing democracy to Afghanistan.” During the six weeks of lowland fighting with the Taliban, some al Qaeda personnel were killed … and al Qaeda moved its leaders and command/control functions elsewhere. Tora Bora should have been the first, not last, target.
– Once the initial phase of fighting was over in any case, it was fairly obvious that Afghanistan was not going to become a western-style democracy, that the US proxy government could no more rule the country than anyone else had ever been able to (including the Taliban), and that every additional day spent there was a waste of American blood and treasure. The US and its proxies still rule very little territory — and the proxies are back to enforcing Islamic law with public executions.
If there’s anything worse than losing a land war in Asia, it’s wasting eight years and thousands of lives pretending not to have lost that land war in Asia.
es, oh, yes, I personally find the term “liquidating” severe.
I’m no fan of correct lines, esp. in foreign policy matters. Cross border realpolitick often gets VERY murky, although non-intervention is my default position. Sovereignty and imminent life-and-death matters makes foreign policy more like 3 dimensional played on a tilt-a-whirl. Occasionally, using the big stick may be indicated to put bullies on notice. Unfortunately, the US often IS the bully, so IMO the emphasis should be to stop our bullying, meddlesome behavior. It appears that this old habit is not dying any time soon.
Pity.
es, ya know, I regret the “bug” comment. I wanted to impart a sense of smallness, but it’s a bit judgmental on my part.
sounds like you called it about right, from a practical perspective.
I never formed an opinion on the Afghanistan action. My only point is I can’t say it’s INappropriate to respond with force to AQN’s aggressive act. It could well be that poor mission definition, poor execution, and the Iraq War distraction doomed the Afghanistan action. I reflexively respond negatively to the idea of nation-building, but IF Afghanistan was a de facto home base of AQN, it seems prudent to suppress by force an organization/nation that gives indications of being prone to repeating 9/11.
So, I’d prefer to see “official” LP pronouncements focus on more clear-cut cases like Iraq, and WE and SK.
I would vote for an L who held this CLiPR position, so I find this to be a reasonable view. I prefer to see it downplayed, though.
Off topic, but for anyone who’s interested, here’s my latest election reform post from Dailykos.com and Opednews.com:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/14/730379/-Election-News-Roundup:-5-8-095-14-09
@18 /RC – you only take on the the rhetorical endbits here, not the meat of the issue – which is;
. . . the notion that ‘liquidating’ is a subject of acceptable policy that may require a correct line. Correct ? In other words, once established as a goal of policy, what verbiage or rationalization must be employed . . .
In terms of military experience, my own is simple historical analysis. I said from the beginning, that Afghanistan would be a mess as an occupation, which it invariably at to be once the rats were killed or fled. Unfortunately the emotional dunderhead types prevailed and trillions of dollars later, the threat remains the same (ie malcontents exist, their means are limited, perhaps some attack with success). Yes, marquee & reprisal may have bird dogged that quarry right away, but the overt issue of the US worldwide presence post cold war is the real issue. Until it is gone, the US will always be a target for determined attackers, regardless of any bug killer applied.
tk, yes, of course, those are ALL constructs. we use constructs every day, all the time. it’s unavoidable! our experience is almost entirely shaped by relativistic perceptions; I suggest it’s important to recognize the subjective nature of what we call “reality.”
There is no spoon 😉
Bob,
If you’re going to take the notion of “constructs” so far as to apply it to concepts like “addition,” you’ve taken it long past the point where you should have applied it to concepts like “respectful,” “peaceful,” “healthy” and especially “social order.”
Now, Susan, we COULD go to Strawberry Fields, where nothing is real, but you seem uninterested in deeply radical inquiry, yes?
sh, you mean like potato vs. potahto?
for me, recognizing that concepts/constructs are not real is an important insight.
**blink**
‘Not real’?
Addition is ‘not real’?
I think you’re confusing incorporeal with ‘not real’.
mdh, I’d maintain that morality is in fact subjective, but that laws are necessary to promote a respectful, healthy, peaceful social order. a recognition that “morality” is subjective doesn’t mean I advocate nihilism.
an MD may do the same behavior as a molester, yet one is helpful, the other hurtful. context matters.
@56 – So if morality is so subjective, then you would posit that even though those of us here believe that molesting little kids is wrong, we should accept that it might be OK, like those guys over at NAMBLA suggest? I’m not really down with that.
Morality to me, while it may be a construct or a concept, is completely objective. There are actions which do harm to other sovereign individuals, and there are actions which do not. That is the essence of libertarianism, of objective morality, and of… common sense. 🙂
Therefore I feel wholeheartedly justified in saying that I’m right and those who disagree with me are wrong. Sounds bullish, or asshole-esque, even, but I am, after all, right.
sh, yes, perhaps “mere” is unfair and dismissive. for me, recognizing that concepts/constructs are not real is an important insight. this recognition opens up the possibility to accept that other constructs are just as valid as my own. zealotry and sanctimoniousness seem contra-indicated for a peaceful life, IMO. and, perhaps paradoxically, respectfully exchanging ideas can be far more persuasive than dialectically spouting dogma.
makes sense to me: communicate with others as you’d have others communicate with you.
“Mere” seems like a rather slighting preface for ‘construct’ (although I think it more properly called ‘concept’) when referring to addition. Or human rights, for that matter.
mdh, yes, we dabbled in non-base 10 in government grade school. otherwise, I’d probably not know there was anything BUT base 10.
it’s eye-opening to realize that numbers (and ideologies) are mere constructs…useful constructs, to be sure.
@49 – Wait. What? You used other systems in grade school, but not since? Seems like a pretty good grade school if they’re teaching other notations? Or are you referring to base 10 as something other than what it means to us in the engineering world?
@47 – Addition does not assume base 10. You can perform addition operations on numbers regardless of the notation, including base 8 (octal), base 16 (hexadecimal), etc.
sl, yes, and I’d add that at this point, US presence in WE (and SK) is used as a kind of launching pad for inappropriate actions such as the Iraq War.
It occurs to me to point out that after 64 years the USA military still occupies Germany and Japan. It is time to end the Second World War and bring the troops home. All of them. Let Germany defend itself against Russia.
Well, Jim, the Libertarian Party has been saying ,b>THAT for thirty five years!
You have to admit that something is wrong with the picture of a country of 300 million (USA) being forced to defend a country of 500 million (EU) from a country of 200 million!
As a matter of fact, maybe the EU wouldn’t be able to0 afford it’s socialized health care if they had to defend themselves.
PEACE
sh, oh, so sorry, most people virtually always assume base 10 when using the laws of addition, precise enough for ya? I can’t say I’ve ever used another base system except in grade school exercises.
addition is a construct…it assumes base 10…
Umm. No, it doesn’t.
sh, nice, clever distinction! yes, addition is a construct…it assumes base 10…yet it seems universally recognized. wind we don’t actually see, yet it IS a physical, measureable phenomenon.
unfortunately, rights are far less universally accepted construct. rights are much more like opinions than wind, or earth or fire.
I have much respect for Murray, Ayn and you. I just don’t buy (any more) the deontological absolutism. Even more dysfunctional, IMO, is the severe definition of L-ism, which has IMO capped membership in the tens of thousands.
Jim: after 64 years the USA military still occupies Germany and Japan. It is time to end the Second World War and bring the troops home. … Let Germany defend itself against Russia. Let Japan defend itself against China.
We didn’t occupy Germany and Japan to defend them, but to prevent them from building up their own militaries. And to use them as bases for the American Empire.
Foreign aid is when you give money to a nation, to buy its own weapons, which it then controls.
Occupation is when you control the weapons, which can be turned on the occupied nation at any time.
Occupation is not defense.
Occupation is not foreign aid.
I’ve seen some liberventionists (not you, Jim) use the term “pay for their own defense” in a way that blurs the line between foreign aid and occupation.
They say that Europe and Japan (which receive no foreign aid) should “pay for their own defense.” This makes such liberventionists sound like they oppose foreign aid, when really, Europe and Japan receive no U.S. foreign aid.
While my personal viewpoints are more skeptical of the strategy of Afghanistan rather than the merits, I must say that I respect all of you here that actually are acting rather than just talking. This includes Jim Davidson, Tom Knapp, Susan Hogarth, LP Girl and the rest of the doers. The world would be a better place if we had more people like you.
But the thing that strikes me about this thread is how some people cannot accept other viewpoints. I realized after looking at some forum postings elsewhere that such failure to even consider others by even just a select few harms the overall goal.
Here’s two posts I thought relevant:
“I think the final straw just came for me as a registered Libertarian in letting a friend of mine (also an LPer) know that I’m going back to school for web graphic design..and that I’ll be getting some “federal” help with that..
He dropped an f-bomb and is now giving me the silent treatment. So I guess I suck now that I want to undo the bad decisions I made in the past and that in doing so I might have to occasionally betray certain strict political ideologies, including my own..
Being a strict ideologue isn’t working for me practically. This is such nonsense, I am ready to switch to the Modern Whig Party.
and
“Right on. I had a similar experience as a lifelong Democrat when I came out and finally said I wasn’t going to vote for Obama, and the best argument for my liberal friends was “well can’t you at least vote for him cuz as the lesser of two evils?” That kind of thinking is nonsense. We need a realistic viable third party. The Whigs are the only ones out there that are realistic and not ideologues.”
So either the World Trade Center was a government facility (news to me) OR the hijackers had REALLY bad aim.
Yes, like the shits who bombed Hiroshima to try to ‘influence’ the mind of Hirohito. Perhaps they thought he was vacationing there.
I’m wanting a more radical, epistemological conversation with you, which you have to date refused.
Yes, because I think it would be a waste of my time, and of yours, and of anyone’s who was so misguided as to try to wade through it.
You want me to stand as proxy for all you dislike about Rothbard (and possibly Rand) – which seems to be pretty much everything – and I’m just not that interested in fueling your obsession.
It seems plain to me that “rights” are concepts, or perhaps social institutions. If I am mistaken, please point me to some pictures of rights.
Do you also need a picture of, say ‘addition’, or perhaps, of ‘wind’?
jd: The United States is not some glorious leader, it is a constitutionally limited republic with a bill of rights. Anyone who doesn’t agree can go to Hell, and may God have mercy on your soul.
me: I agree with the first sentence, and I go further: I’d like to limit it MORE than the Constitution (read literally) currently does.
Progress in the second sentence!!! You’re not suggesting they be beaten with rebar!!!
But, consider even more non-violent communication, Jim. Those who don’t want government to be limited hold misguided, dysfunctional views.
sh: The ‘federal government’ was the TARGET of the hijackers. Putting it in charge of the investigation and reprisal is inviting them to engage in the same rights-abuses HERE that provoked so many people overseas to hate it so much.
me: Really? I see. So either the World Trade Center was a government facility (news to me) OR the hijackers had REALLY bad aim.
I seem to recall that bin Laden was anti-capitalism, and his peeps had tried to blow up WTC once before as they viewed it as a symbol of capitalism and western civilization’s corruption. Am I misrecalling?
To be clear, I AGREE that the Feds HAVE meddled in other countries, e.g., Iran in the 50s, and there HAS BEEN blowback. Maybe the 9/11 hijackers were actually NOT part of AQN, just lone nuts, but near as I can tell, that’s false. I am very, very, very skeptical of what the Feds and the media tell us, but I do happen to believe, all things considered, that there is a tiny jihad that is generally not a threat to the US, BUT in the case of 9/11, they did mastermind a blow to the US and innocent citizens in and around the WTC. With great trepidation, I did support attempts to bring the planners to justice, and I buy that they were based in Afghanistan at the time. How that should have been accomplished…hard to say.
Personally, I prefer to distance the LP from the Truthers’s analysis. Similarly, oversimplifying complex international events tends to hurt, not help, the LP’s cause. I note that this CLiPR stated: “…goal changed from liquidating al Qaeda to pursuing meddlesome ‘nation-building’ objectives…” I support that message. I think we should be REALLY careful going beyond that.
susan 22…some feedback:
sh: (1) You’ve made an error in assuming that others share your belief that one right can ‘trump’ another. This is what leads you to think that those who support the right of secession place that right ‘higher’ than the right to individual liberty. In actual fact, they are the same right.
me: Really? That’s an “actual fact,”is it? Have you ever observed a “right”? What’s it look like? It seems plain to me that “rights” are concepts, or perhaps social institutions. If I am mistaken, please point me to some pictures of rights.
sh: Your attempt to insinuate that [LvMI] is pro-slavery is intellectually dishonest.
me: sorry, that wasn’t my intent. Please allow me to clarify. We were discussing ambivalence, me the merits, you the demerits. You quoted a person who was grappling with the slavery issue back in the day. Where we seem to disconnect is that I believe some rights are more important than others. You and the good people at LvMI apparently don’t. They seem “obsessed” about secession, despite the existence of slavery, which of course they oppose. I don’t cling to that view, because I find some issues more important and more salient, because my views involve judgment and weighing of various factors. This is one of the reasons I find the NAP woefully unacceptable as an operative political philosophy. I don’t think there is a single, unifying concept that works when it comes to political analysis. I’m wanting a more radical, epistemological conversation with you, which you have to date refused. I want that conversation because I believe it explains the radical/pragmatist divide. Another day, perhaps….
sh: That’s because *I*, unlike *you*, am not obsessed with Rothbard.
me: hmm, yes, I suppose it might appear that way. It is my take that much of today’s dysfunction in the LP dates back to when MNR and Evers basically took over the LP, installing Rothbardisms into the founding documents. When I read his Forums now, for example, I find his views a) shockingly simplistic and b) still holding much sway over elements in the LP. I can’t know whether this is an explicit thing, or by osmosis, but Rothbard’s “plumb line” views still seem very much to at play, even today. That doesn’t seem to be “thinking for yourself” to me, which is my practice.
I’d really like to hear your response to all these points, but most especially about “actual facts.”
The patsy “pilots” were “trained” in Gov. Jeb Bush’s Florida, so the U.S. Air Force dropped a bunch of depleted uranium ammunition on his hidey-hole … right? Right? Where are the LNC vs CLIPR whitepapers on nuking Palm Beach?
Meanwhile, the disintegration of the buildings was planned by Mormon terrorists in the caves of Area 51. More likely than not, the entire town of Pahrump was complicit.
@36 If he has that many other hands, might they be tentacles?
Susan and Libertariangirl:
The almost dead and dying Reform movement has it’s own ‘Robert Copozzi’, namely the [so called] Chair man of New Mexico, Richard Damero, possibly the dumbest PhD around. He is known wide and far as Mister ‘On the Other Hand’….
Masterminds?
Let’s talk about “masterminds”.
“Masterminds” forced airline pilots and ordinary law-abiding citizens to travel on commercial airplanes disarmed — leaving them defenseless against people who spent years figuring out what they could use as weapons that would get around the restrictions.
“Masterminds” received reports from FBI field officers about walking terrorist profiles taking flying lessons — and ignored them.
“Masterminds” have ratcheted ever upwards a nasty war against people called Drug Prohibition, forcing dealers to turn from hard-working, peaceful American farmers, to the criminal underclass in poor nations to supply a product that would otherwise be worth pennies per pound on the free market — a criminal underclass that supports narcoterrorists like bin Laden and even the Taliban themselves.
“Masterminds” have made it almost impossible for domestic oil producers to drill for oil, much less construct a refinery, thus giving the oil-producing petroterrorists who fund other terrorists huge subsidies in the form of restricted competition.
“Masterminds” have delivered about $2 trillion of US wealth to oil producing nations in the form of foreign aid, subsidies, military assistance and protection, and direct spending by US government entities and personnel over the past five decades — not even counting the seven or eight trillion more in oil money we have sent their way. Much of that has gone into the offshore numbered bank accounts of the leaders of those nations, and the pile left over is funneled into subsidizing the bank accounts of hate-spewing extremist madrassah 8th-century pedophilic violent thugs.
The list could go on and on.
No, the alleged “masterminds” who planned and implemented 9/11 are tiny cogs compared to the real “Masterminds” who have systematically steered us on a path to conflict with people a world away. They have left us in a situation where every dollar we put in our gas tanks represents money funneled into the pockets of people who support a modern-day death cult.
Trusting the same idiot “Masterminds” who have enabled the small-m “masterminds” to “stop” them is just plain daft.
@29 That’s right, LG. You go, girl!
After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the Taliban offered to help capture Osama bin Laden. All they asked was to be shown the evidence that he was responsible for the attacks. So, no, slaughtering Afghanis isn’t a good way to retaliate against Saudi nationals stealing airplanes and flying them into buildings.
I like this call for an end to the war in Afghanistan. I was very pleased by Susan’s resolution, and did what I was able to support it, and promote it, at the time.
It occurs to me to point out that after 64 years the USA military still occupies Germany and Japan. It is time to end the Second World War and bring the troops home. All of them. Let Germany defend itself against Russia. Let Japan defend itself against China.
It has been 56 years since the end of the Korean War. It is time to declare victory and bring the troops home. Let South Korean defend itself.
The Campaign for Liberty has noted that, not counting embassies and their guard units, there are 805 USA military bases in 160 countries. It is time to stop slaughtering civilians, raping civilians, and corrupting governments in all those countries. It is time to disband the CIA and prosecute all of its agents for crimes against humanity.
It is time to turn Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld over to the International Criminal Court. It is time to end the wars on the American people, especially the war on drugs and the war on terror. Those who have made war on the United States must be prosecuted for treason and, as convicted, must be executed.
The United States is not some glorious leader, it is a constitutionally limited republic with a bill of rights. Anyone who doesn’t agree can go to Hell, and may God have mercy on your soul.
So your idea of libertarianism is to let someone attack and do nothing in return?
No. I said no such thing.
Eric,
Like to say its good to hear from you again. But, as others have pointed out, I’m a truther 🙂
Also, you never answered my question from a previous post. To remind you, it was this:
Are you an anti-Paul Republican or a pro-Barr Libertarian?
@28 – Don’t you have a Giuliani 2012 fundraiser to attend somewhere?
no worries Eric , you ARENT in the same movement as us.
This is absurd. You all are not Libertarians. Stop using the label and embarrassing the rest of us who are.
My gosh, you all have gone mad. You’re like Pro-Fascist. Just let the Islamo-Fascist world destroy our country.
Forget 9/11 right? Just pretend it never happened.
You know, sometimes I am completely fucking embarrassed to be in the same movement as you fucking pricks.
“The ‘federal government’ was the TARGET of the hijackers. Putting it in charge of the investigation and reprisal is inviting them to engage in the same rights-abuses HERE that provoked so many people overseas to hate it so much.”
So your idea of libertarianism is to let someone attack and do nothing in return? That’s pacifism, not libertarianism.
It’s a fact that the war in Afghanistan completely dismantled al-Qaeda’s base of operations in the country. The group really doesn’t exist anymore. Not so much for the Taliban, but it’s difficult to simply let the same people who collaborated to attack you take back over the country.
It’s a good thing that the LP made this statement.
Susan?
What? Got a question for me?
But…I don’t have a problem with a federal government seeking out masterminds of 9/11, and stopping them.
Yeah, ’cause the federal government is such an efficient and considerate entity. Naturally you’d want it to undertake something so important.
Sheesh!
The ‘federal government’ was the TARGET of the hijackers. Putting it in charge of the investigation and reprisal is inviting them to engage in the same rights-abuses HERE that provoked so many people overseas to hate it so much.
@20 I agree we should be sending out messages to free-market and liberty-oriented Democrats as well as disgruntled Republicans. Plus all the non-affiliated and other like-minded people out there. It’s true not all those coming in will be Randy Rothbardians, but the more the merrier.
Would it be better if the CLiPr releases came from the shadow government, from the shadow press secretary with quotes from shadow government officials? It seems odd to have LNC members quoted in a release not from the LNC.
Capozzi: Susan, interesting choice of quotes, to say the least. VA was part of an Insurrection (aka, a Civil War) over the “protecting the rights of slaveholders” in large measure.
Your point being? The quote wasn’t by an entity named “Virginia”, but by a person living in a place called ‘Virginia”. What that has to do with the state’s position in the war is beyond me.
You’ve been published by the Von Mises Institute, which seems to believe that the “right” of secession, even over slavery, trumps the rights of man (I’d say “humans.”)
(1) You’ve made an error in assuming that others share your belief that one right can ‘trump’ another. This is what leads you to think that those who support the right of secession place that right ‘higher’ than the right to individual liberty. In actual fact, they are the same right.
(2) Are you trying the silly guilt-by-association game? My essay was about the benefits of division of -voluntary- labor. Even if every member of the Mises Inst. was pro-slavery (ludicrous) and their mission statement was the restoration of slavery, that wouldn’t change my essay into something pro-slavery. Your attempt to insinuate that it is pro-slavery is intellectually dishonest.
There, too, I’ve some ambivalence,
Shocking!
for I believe in the right of self determination, but I MORE believe in the peace and liberty of all, especially slaves, who are the FIRST people I’d free from chattel.
Well, it’s reassuring to know you have a list of set-rights to get to when you’re anointed Supreme Leader with godlike powers.
Sorting out rights
There is the heart of the problem. you think rights need to be ‘sorted’, and that some rights are more important than others.
and optimal paths toward peace ain’t always formulaic, much as I wished it WAS easy.
No one has asserted that it is, to my knowledge.
We await your opus on the optimal way of peace.
They royal ‘we’? Or are there really two of you? That would certainly explain the ambivalence thing…
As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I wonder: Where do you disagree with Murray, whom I recall you’ve said you are his “love child,” or some such?
The phrase – meant to be light and amusing – was ‘intellectual love child’. You might reflect that ‘child’ by no means implies ‘complete agreement’ OR clone.
But I’ve got no wish to make a comparison chart of me vs. Rothbard. For one thing, I’m not what I’d consider an expert on his work.
I ask because you counsel ME on “thinking for myself,” yet I’ve never seen you ever publicly itemize the instances where you disagree with the Bard of Brooklyn….
That’s because *I*, unlike *you*, am not obsessed with Rothbard. I don’t HAVE to constantly point out where I disagree (or agree) with him. Also, he’s dead and has a body of work which contains quite a few apparent contradictions, so it would be a pointless list: “I disagree with MNR in 1993 and 1963, but I’m -so- there with 1973 Rothbard.” Ridiculous, and only someone with a real Rothbard obsession would think to catalog those differences.
Don’t you ever think that trading a positive obsession for a negative one was sort of a net wash?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
Turns out that RANDIANS were “correct line”res.
ROTHBARDians are “plumb-liners.”
A distinction without a difference?
I’d say Yes. But, then, I have a propensity to THINK for MYSELF.
Susan?
“if your aim is to grow the party, it seems like thinking Republicans are looking for a place to go”
The LP should welcome ‘thinking Republicans’ – but that’s sort of contingent on -what- they’re thinking. If they’re thinking “Gee, the Republican Party has gotten away from its roots as a real force for conservatism,” the LP is probably not their natural home. If they’re thinking “The Republican Party is just like the DP, only more boring and less tolerant,” THEN they’re our peeps.
Few people come into the LP perfect Libs, but they should at least embrace the core ideas.
Also, this idea that we should recruit most heavily from the ‘out’ party is suspect. As the DP becomes more open in its wielding of power, lib-leaning Democrats will start to see that their party isn’t really about even the social freedoms, let alone the real freedom that comes with being able to use your own labor as you choose.
ES: No pangs about Congress needing to declare war?
me: Yep, I would MUCH prefer a declared war.
ES: The countless loss of innocent life as collateral damage ?
Me: Yep, horrible collateral damage.
ES: The trillions spent on chasing hapless man-teen zealots through mountainous regions that defy any ’state’ definition ?
Me: Yes, I’ve many concerns about the HOW of the Afghanistan effort. Trillions sounds overstated, though. Could be that — strategically and tactically — the Afghanistan effort was poorly conceived…I have little expertise in military matters, candidly. Perhaps you do? Maybe the whole thing was a mistake in HOW it was conceived. Maybe marque & reprisal WAS the way to go. But…I don’t have a problem with a federal government seeking out masterminds of 9/11, and stopping them. The strategy and tactics for doing so — at least until we have anarcho-topia — I’m open to a number of paths.
Susan, interesting choice of quotes, to say the least. VA was part of an Insurrection (aka, a Civil War) over the “protecting the rights of slaveholders” in large measure. You’ve been published by the Von Mises Institute, which seems to believe that the “right” of secession, even over slavery, trumps the rights of man (I’d say “humans.”)
There, too, I’ve some ambivalence, for I believe in the right of self determination, but I MORE believe in the peace and liberty of all, especially slaves, who are the FIRST people I’d free from chattel.
Sorting out rights and optimal paths toward peace ain’t always formulaic, much as I wished it WAS easy. We await your opus on the optimal way of peace.
As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I wonder: Where do you disagree with Murray, whom I recall you’ve said you are his “love child,” or some such? I ask because you counsel ME on “thinking for myself,” yet I’ve never seen you ever publicly itemize the instances where you disagree with the Bard of Brooklyn….
RC: “IF the goal of “liquidating” AQN were re-adopted, what would the KL (correct line, in MNR speak) be?”
Yes obvious . . .
Liquidating any group at the direction of another is prima facie wrong. All trooferism aside, that ‘goal’ was never carried out very well anyway ( hello . . . Tora Bora !) and it’s roots were struck in the rattled brains of Straussians ( Bill Kristol is even dining with BO on occasion at George Will’s house) still extending their cold war logic to something that needed the nomenclature of ‘evil’. The externalities and corollaries (think current abuse photo flak) from those poor decisions should be enough to squelch any re-adoption considerations.
No pangs about Congress needing to declare war? The countless loss of innocent life as collateral damage ? The trillions spent on chasing hapless man-teen zealots through mountainous regions that defy any ‘state’ definition ?
Gadzooks . . . ‘correct line’ indeed.
Capozzi,
Ask Norman Minetta. Or watch his testimony before Congress about Cheney issuing a stand down order from the basement of the Pentagon on 9/11, which can be viewed here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/270705testimonycensored.htm
19 muslims with box cutters could not have caused America’s entire air defenses to stand down. Cheney’s stand down order could. So, to answer your question, the appropriate response would have been to investigate the largest terrorist attack in American history until we were sure the terrorists had been brought to justice.
It is, however, simpler to believe what the TV tells you without putting it through a rational filter. I’m just too smart for that. Turn off your TV.
Tab,
That’s an interesting view. According to the FBI, the bagman of 9/11 was General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was the head of Pakistani’s ISI?
So, if you are correct on this point, and the cia had no direct transfer of funds to Bin Laden, despite the AP article I cited, the cia gave money to the ISI and the ISI gave money to Bin Laden. Not much of a stretch for clandestine organizations to launder money.
Curiously, Porter Goss – and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were having breakfast with the ISI’s head, Ahmad, on the very morning of the attacks? One more of those strange cooincidences, Capozzi believes we should dismiss without a full public investigation with subpoena powers.
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/Goss_9-11.htm
http://www.JimDuensing.com/should-nancy-pelosi-or-porter-goss-be-tortured-to-save-the-constitution.html
Had a Libertarian foreign policy been followed prior to 9/11, we wouldn’t have been entangled in the foreign affairs of those countries anyway. Not so good for Haliburton’s no-bid contracts, but good for the liberty and security of the American people.
George Washington was right.
Ross,
You write:
“are you just going to focus on more left wing issues, or are you going to focus on things that LP HQ doesn’t, or something else entirely?”
We choose our release topics by members of the working group throwing out suggestions. We toss them around until there’s general agreement that one is the best to go with.
Personally, I agitate toward topics that are prominent in the MSM news cycle at the moment. I haven’t given much thought to “left-right” balance. Right now I’d classify two of our three releases as nominally “left” and one as traditionally “right” if anyone cares to evaluate on that spectrum.
I’ve noted some desire among group members to a) “scoop” LPHQ on a topic by hitting it first, or b) do a reactive release if LPHQ’s take on a topic doesn’t represent the LP well (that thinking prevailed on the immigration/swine flu thing, which was probably the LPHQ fail most responsible for the project coming into existence).
“Just wondering, because if your aim is to grow the party”
I’m a fan of what I’m starting think of as “modular, project-oriented” activism. That is, a group gets together around a specific task, and leaves other tasks to other groups.
CLiPr has one task:
We do that by creating, publishing, distributing and promoting our releases, and hopefully referring journalists to good interview contacts.
While we certainly hope that doing what we do will have particular effects (“growing the party,” attracting positive attention to the party, correcting public misconceptions about the party, etc.), we’re focused on the specific task and hopeful that other projects will utilize our work product to the party’s advantage.
Jim,
The CIA never funded bin Laden nor any fighters directly related to him. The CIA gave money to the Pakistani ISI who in turn was supposed to give it to the Afghanis. Bin Laden never has been a CIA friend despite the various internet conspiracy theories.
Bin Laden was relatively unknown at that point and al-Qaeda didn’t even really exist as we knew it until 1998. I guess some of our weapons could have ended up in the hands of his fighters, but it was not intentional.
As for the Afghanistan, history would have easily told everyone a “stable” nation isn’t going to rise in that country. It is a tribal country dominated by warlords and always has been. Not going to change really. The best we could have hoped for is the country that existed pre-Soviet invasion.
Tom – are you just going to focus on more left wing issues, or are you going to focus on things that LP HQ doesn’t, or something else entirely? Just wondering, because if your aim is to grow the party, it seems like thinking Republicans are looking for a place to go (I’m not sure the press releases from the LP help because they just seem to mimic the current day Republican party).
lg, I’m at LEAST as skeptical of the media as I am of dogmatic absolutists! if it WASN’T aqn, who was it who planned 9/11? and what was the appropriate response? I’m OK with RP’s marque & reprisal idea, but I’m open to the idea that something more was also appropriate.
tk, yes, the LNC resolution could’ve been cited. if it’s not clear, I certainly support ending the US’s world policeman role. I prefer to critique Iraq more than Afghanistan, the latter of which had some justification at the outset.
Another bad case of the dreaded Ambivalence (from VA, pre-emancipation):
http://tinyurl.com/o93xjp
I see this in not an “official” LP press release. If it was, it would most likely have linked to the following:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lnc-passes-afghanistan-resolution
I would urge those sending out unofficial – but official looking – press releases to do a simple Google Search first like I did to see what the real LP says on this matter. It is simple and straight forward and I commend the LP for passing this.
Thank you to you all for getting this message out!
Rick M.
PS – The Center for LP PR Info may want to use their own logo since they are not obviously endorsed by the LP and this would prevent confusion like I had orginally thinking this was a PR by the LP.
stamping on the bug…interesting metaphor…
responsible for 9-11 like Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction ? You dont have to be a truther to distrust what you’ve been told by corporate media and our government. Dont tell me you think government suddenly got honest since Obama took office?
susan, wow, good for you! for you, apparently “thinking for yourself” leads you to have all the answers on everything! no questions, no gray areas on anything ever!
have you considered running for inter-galactic empress? we could use an all-knowing oracle to undo all this mess! 😉
Bob,
Our releases are about what the LP’s line on some actual issue X is, not about what the LP’s line on some hypothetical issue Y would be.
Of course, we quote prominent Libertarians in support of the LP’s line on issue X, and those quotes, if closely analyzed, may have ramifications beyond a tight focus on the line on issue X.
Unless those quotes obviously raise some pretty far out ramifications that conflict with basic LP doctrine, however, they should probably be taken as just an indication of the fact that people are Libertarians, or “libertarian on isssue X,” for various reasons.
The LNC resolution should have been mentioned — my editorial ball-dropping is responsible for the omission.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
lg, my ambivalence stems from the fact that I consider it wise to foil aqn, which is based in afghanistan. not being a truther, I agree with the idea of stamping on the bug that claims credit for 9/11. how this is a no brainer, I don’t see…school me.
despite susan’s apparent b/w worldview, sometimes things get complicated and 3 dimensional.
If you’re feeling confused… ask your doctor.
You may have ambivalence!
But, not-to-worry! There’s a new! miracle! cure! for the scourge of ambivalence!
It’s… yes, yes, it is: MORE ambivalence!
Now available in convenient pill form over the counter. Ask your pharmacist!
Or, try the old-fashioned cure:
Take two chapters of _Human Action_ and get a good night’s sleep (zzzzz….). Next day your mind should be functioning smoothly again. Then simply try THINKING for YOURSELF.
robert i have no idea what you just said lol.
But i know we need to get out of Afghanistan.
how can you have ambivalence on such a no-brainer?
OMG, stop the presses!
Robert has AMBIVALENCE!
Oh, wait… Capozzi. Chronic condition. No news here.
I have some ambivalence on this one. IF the goal of “liquidating” AQN were re-adopted, what would the KL (correct line, in MNR speak) be? Not obvious.
I hold no banner on this one.
I wish we had followed Ron Paul’s advice several years ago and stayed out of that powder keg instead of letting the cia train and fund radical muslim extremists like Osama Bin Laden.
For a detailed history see:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
Or, read an October 2001 AP article entitled ‘U.S. Gave Sniper Rifles to Afghanistan ‘ – the article details that some of those weapons went to Bin Laden as many as ten years prior to 9/11.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47554119.html
I’m not one of those governmental conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was blowback for the US’s meddling in the region, but we sure aren’t winning the hearts and minds of the innocent people in Afghanistan by bombing their villages.
Well done!!
The only thing I can think of that MIGHT have given this release a bit more oomph would be to add a quote from Admiral Colley (sp).
Or maybe to add that the LNC has passed a resolution to this effect.
PEACE