Comments on: Song of the Schmibertarians

By: The Wobbly Guy

The Wobbly Guy — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:07:38 +0000

Think about it. What if Hitler never declared war? Sure, it could be argued that Germany was already attacking US shipping, but similarly, Iraq is already at war even if they never formally declared so. It was a fairer world in the past. If a nation wanted war, they would have declared it, but not nowadays with all that nuancing. Just because Saddam did not declare war on the US did not mean he was NOT at war with it. Shadowy ties nowadays took the place of official alliances; why publicise any such alliances when you gain nothing from the publicity? Keep it quiet and gain the benefits. In many ways, the bad guys have gotten smarter too! I actually felt Saddam could have been as great a threat as Hitler, only he made a severe miscalculation in invading Kuwait too early. If he had deigned to finish his nuclear WMD program, and then invaded Kuwait, I imagine the stalemate would have been similar to the current morass on the Korean peninsula. And it would be even worse, because of the oil reserves in the ME being held hostage to Saddam’s whim. While the US would not be much affected, East Asia would be severly affected. For me at least, invading and liberating Iraq was not to give Saddam a second chance.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:15:51 +0000

TWG, you have to be clinically insane to honestly believe Saddam was as much a threat to anyone as Hitler was. Japan attacked us, Germany (which had an official treaty with them, instead of shadowy “ties”) declared war on us. There is no comparison between that and your Iraq war.

By: The Wobbly Guy

The Wobbly Guy — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:53:49 +0000

Possible to screw up in Iraq? Perfectly. But not without giving it a lot of effort and treasure first. It’s statist, sure, but some of the greatest efforts in modern history were carried out by states. WW2, remember? “Oh sure, Germany didn’t attack us! We didn’t declare war on them, just on Japan! Never mind all those mass graves the Russians found! It’s not our problem!” If that’s being a military socialist, I’m PROUD to be a military socialist, if that means saving lives and putting an end to despotism. The point is that islamic terrorism and Iraq, though on different sides of the fundie/secular fence, were in accord that the US was a common enemy. The chances that Iraq would have started supporting Al Qaeda efforts, and then later starting and finishing a WMD program for use against western targets, though small, were simply not that negligible to be ignored. This conflict in Iraq is entirely for your own self benefit. Too bad you see only the short term costs but not the long term rewards, which admittedly is not a sure thing. But since when was anything in war a sure thing? TWG

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:17:58 +0000

“They only comment at Samizdata…” in the sense that Natalie didn’t post her response here, but merely a link to a site she has some admin control over (or has pull with those who do). If y’all think Samizdata is ugly now, wait until Iraq is officially lost, and they start talking about “wreckers” and being “stabbed in the back” by those of us who opposed their war. They’re just a bunch of military (as opposed to economic) socialists, and will respond to failure the way any other statists do.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:50:37 +0000

They only comment at Samizdata so they can ban those who disagree with them, because their damn war is going to hell and they don’t want to admit how idiotic they were to trust the government (or at least GeeDub) to do this without screwing it up, and lack the intellectual honesty to take responsibility for the results of the war they demanded.

By: Natalie Solent

Natalie Solent — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:00:04 +0000

Alas, it seems we at Samizdata came late to a party in our honour. I have commented briefly on this series of CT posts over at Samizdata itself.

By: Louis Wheeler

Louis Wheeler — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:46:39 +0000

This post explains why Libertarians are so inept at politics; you are so impractical. One can agree with your goals, but understand that they must be sold to the American people. The Left has convinced the people that they are getting something for nothing in the welfare state. They will not tolerate its immediate destruction. So, some halfway measure must be contrived to wean them toward freedom. Bush is not fostering Socialism, but its eventual destruction. The War is not something one can reasonably argue about. One must either agree that we are in this war no matter what we do and did,. Or not. If one denies that the War is unavoidable, the product of forces beyond America’s control, then there is no point in talking.

By: ian

ian — Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:14:10 +0000

Yes!

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:44:47 +0000

1) States are fundamental rights-bearers who cannot be aggressed against — which is a really weird thing for libertarians to think. Isn’t also a really weird thing for libertarians to think that corporations are fundamental rights-bearers who cannot be aggressed against?

By: David M

David M — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:06:53 +0000

Mark Lilla has a book out accusing intellectuals of having “philotyrannical” sympathies. Its a fairly poor argument, apparently meant to taint liberal academia, but its corollary seems more true: there is a genuine philoanarchical impulse on the right.

By: perianwyr

perianwyr — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:36:19 +0000

Libertarian kids turn into Republican adults. That’s all that’s really happening.

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:07:29 +0000

Mq: I wouldn’t claim that pro-war libertarians have become full-bore statists on domestic policy, only that there is a noticeable drift in that direction. It is small one but it is definately there. I don’t think that it is just because they regard domestic policy as more “boring” than blowing up things (though that may be a factor). It is also because their newfound faith in big government overseas has rubbed off, albeit in still fairly small ways, on how they view big government at home. The old anti-big government zeal has waned in terms as rhetoric as well. Back in the 1990s, many of these same folks zealously attacked the ATF and the FBI for their role in Waco. They were full of righteous indignation (“swaggering”). I couldn’t imagine them doing that now.

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:29:48 +0000

As David points out above, the Cato Institute deserves some serious credit for being against the war early and often (before many liberals). They are one of the flagship institutions of U.S. libertarianism. David’s point about unwillingness to stand up to the Bush administration on domestic policy is interesting but to me not completely convincing. Almost all pro-war libertarians denounced the Medicare drug bill even if they didn’t make a lot of noise about it. Many may have felt it was the only alternative to an even more expensive liberal version. And frankly Iraq made domestic policy look boring to most of the armchair warrior types out there.

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:28:55 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:40:59 +0000

I have realized for a long time that, for most so-called libertarians, “libertarian” means little more than “leave me alone, personally—but not for thee if I have a beef with your behavior.” Yes, with an added corollary: “I don’t know where the money comes from to pay for this wonderful exercise in Better Living Through Weaponry, but I sure as hell ain’t paying for it.”