Derek,
In his article, Max Borders writes:
"Is it possible for one to be libertarian about policies at home and neo-conservative about policies abroad?"
The answer clearly is: It is not possible.
Why? As William Randolph Bourne presciently observed: "War is the health of the state." The state always expands domestically during wartime and never returns to its previous smaller size.
A Big Govt libertarian abroad is of necessity a Big Govt libertarian at home.
Best, Michael
Michael:
I'm glad you mentioned the quotation by Randolph Bourne. In Bourne's
day, America was protected by two very wide oceans. At the time of
his death in 1918 there had never been a transatlantic flight, and
nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them were unknown.
Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond
the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was
relatively easy and inexpensive for the US. In addition, America had
much more of an economically
self-sufficient economy than could be possible in today's globalization.
So, the isolationist approach to foreign policy made some sense then.
Today, however, it would be an extremely dangerous way to conduct
foreign policy.
-Derek
Derek,
Your answer is interesting; however, it side-steps the subject of my message, Max Border's question and my response to it, namely, that it is not possible for one to be libertarian about policies at home and neo-conservative (a hawk) about policies abroad. (See my previous message for the explanation.)
D'accordo (a little Italian lingo, there)?
Best, Michael
Michael:
I completely disagree that one cannot be a libertarian at home and a
hawk overseas, but will reply in more detail tomorrow during my trip
to LA. For now I will point out that being a foreign policy hawk does
not necessarily imply being a "neocon".
-Derek
Derek,
I agree with you, I withdraw the term "neo-con."
I can't phrase it better than Bourne: "War is the health of the state."
And I can't elucidate it better than Anthony Gregory:
"No one who favors the warfare state can disown the methods by which it's financed. It is no less economically collectivist to root for war than to root for any other government program. If a socialist told you he wants universal healthcare, but he does not favor the taxation and coercion to fund and implement it, you would quickly point out his naked contradiction. Every warmonger is an inflationist and a taxmonger, whether he knows it or not."
http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory98.html
Have a successful trip to LA.
Best, Michael
Derek - Question for you - If it's so easy to attack
countries from afar these days, why doesn't the US
military solely adopt this approach? Why have military
bases in 100+ countries, secret prisons and interfere
with foreign governments when they can simply lob a
cruise missile over?
Seems like a more defensive stance would save a ton of
money and there would be no question as to whether US
meddling had resulted in additional wars or terrorist
activities.
d.
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
David:
Two reasons:
1. As a civilized people, we care more about killing innocents than
our enemies (the islamofascists) do.
This requires lots of troops, technology, and money.
2. We have way more to lose. Al qaeda and other terrorist groups and
their state sponsors would consider a nuke going off in a us city a
great victory. We would take no such pleasure in nuking tehrhan for
instance. So we are always playing defense. Technology has advanced so
much that fortress america is no longer feasible nor wise. That's why
we need to project our force and intelligence - to pre-empt disaster.
Dear David;
Ask Bill Clinton how well the lob a cruise missile plan worked for him.
However; with a purely defensive military stance there would be no need for the 150 military bases and the 150,000 militray members stationed overseas not including the 10,000 or so in Afghanistan and the 150,000 in Iraq.
For an eye opener see the pdf attached it is a list how many military personnel are stationed overseas and where. We need to immediately bring back everyone of them today!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:
Derek - Question for you - If it's so easy to attack
countries from afar these days, why doesn't the US
military solely adopt this approach? Why have military
bases in 100+ countries, secret prisons and interfere
with foreign governments when they can simply lob a
cruise missile over?
Seems like a more defensive stance would save a ton of
money and there would be no question as to whether US
meddling had resulted in additional wars or terrorist
activities.
d.
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
Michael:
I'm glad you mentioned the quotation by Randolph
Bourne. In Bourne's
day, America was protected by two very wide oceans.
At the time of
his death in 1918 there had never been a
transatlantic flight, and
nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them were
unknown.Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of
America was beyond
the capabilities of the vast majority of nations.
Self-defense was
relatively easy and inexpensive for the US. In
addition, America had
much more of an economically
self-sufficient economy than could be possible in
today's globalization.So, the isolationist approach to foreign policy made
some sense then.
Today, however, it would be an extremely dangerous
way to conduct
foreign policy.-Derek
> Derek,
>
> In his article, Max Borders writes:
> "Is it possible for one to be libertarian about
policies at home and
> neo-conservative about policies abroad?"
>
> The answer clearly is: It is not possible.
>
> Why? As William Randolph Bourne presciently
observed: "War is the
> health of the state." The state always expands
domestically during
> wartime and never returns to its previous smaller
size.
>
> A Big Govt libertarian abroad is of necessity a
Big Govt libertarian
> at home.
>
> Best, Michael
>
>
> From: Derek Jensen
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Flying with the
Libertarian Hawks
>
>
> Yeah, I'm interested in such a conversation too.
I will point out
> however, that I prefer peace as well. We just
have different ideas on
> how to achieve it.
>
> > Thanks, I'll take the Peace Bus.
> >
> > Seriously, I would be interested in a sustained
conversation between
> > Libertarian hawks and doves, on-line or in
person, but won't have
> > time
> > for that for awhile.
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Derek Jensen
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:03 AM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Flying with the
Libertarian Hawks
> >
> > Tech Central Station
> >
> >
> > --
> > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >
> > Illegitimis non carborundum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics
noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)
Derek - I guess I will have to echo Michael E. and
suggest that you are side stepping my question. The
fact that 'we' are civilized or have more to lose
doesn't directly correlate to why certain individuals
are motivated to attack. There is significant
evidence to believe terrorists have attacked
__because_ of US pre-emptive strategies and meddling.
So this best intentioned strategy becomes a self
fulfilling prophesy over time. Or are you suggesting
terrorists attack because they are simply jealous?
Also, no amount of pre-emptive meddling abroad would
have stopped Timothy McVeigh from blowing up the Fed
building. The fact that he didn't realize flying a
plane into it would have had a bigger impact, is
somewhat circumstantial..
Additionally, your use of 'we' is a bit curious. For
instance, 'I' don't feel I was attacked on 9/11. In
fact, I sometimes feel like I have more in common with
Mexico than NYC - borders be damned..Ways NYC
attacked? Who was attacked? My point is - diminish
the superpower, and you diminish the target as well as
the cause..
d
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
David:
You asked me why not go to a defensive stance and rely on missle
technology. I thought my two answers addressed this question
straight-on. I take Osama Bin Laden's word at face value when he
stated that the United States must convert to Islam, ditch its
constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto
climate change treaty. In addition, his terms of surrender for
America include the barring of alcohol, gambling, and women's photos
in newspapers or advertising.
Sound good?
Remember: we can have peace right now if we just accept these
conditions. Or we can continue to fight the Islamofascists on their
own turf. This is why I think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a
splendid idea.
-Derek
Correction: "Were and are a splendid idea."
On that note, have you checked out some of the loony statements being
made by Iran's president about being bathed in a white light during
his UN speech, the holocaust being a myth, and hoping to bring about
the return of the 11th Imam. I read that he had his cabinet sign
loyalty oaths to the second coming of the 11th imam and then they
dropped them down a well where the 11th imam is believed to be
"hiding".
Let's hope Israel has the resolve to take the action necessary to deny
this nutcase access to nukes.
Well, I really have not interest in getting into yet
another Iraqi war argument, but I'm still not hearing
any proof of causality or something from you; just
this jumping to conclusions such as 'Bin Laden said
evil things, therefore he must be destroyed or 'we'
will suffer'. I can't confirm your words of his below
but consider the following translation -
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
maybe he did say the US needs to convert to Islam at
some point - but was that his motive for attack? I
think not. There will always be psychos in this world
and a fair amount of sabre rattling. It's not cause
for paranoia. To this day, your chances of getting car
jacked by a local thug are higher than death by
terrorism. Canada did some sabre rattling
today..should we attack? They might invade us at some
point right?
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/14/canada.martin.reut/index.html
cheers...d.
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
David:
You asked me why not go to a defensive stance and
rely on missle
technology. I thought my two answers addressed this
question
straight-on. I take Osama Bin Laden's word at face
value when he
stated that the United States must convert to Islam,
ditch its
constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and
sign the Kyoto
climate change treaty. In addition, his terms of
surrender for
America include the barring of alcohol, gambling,
and women's photos
in newspapers or advertising.Sound good?
Remember: we can have peace right now if we just
accept these
conditions. Or we can continue to fight the
Islamofascists on their
own turf. This is why I think the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq was a
splendid idea.-Derek
> Derek - I guess I will have to echo Michael E. and
> suggest that you are side stepping my question.
The
> fact that 'we' are civilized or have more to lose
> doesn't directly correlate to why certain
individuals
> are motivated to attack. There is significant
> evidence to believe terrorists have attacked
> __because_ of US pre-emptive strategies and
meddling.
> So this best intentioned strategy becomes a self
> fulfilling prophesy over time. Or are you
suggesting
> terrorists attack because they are simply jealous?
>
> Also, no amount of pre-emptive meddling abroad
would
> have stopped Timothy McVeigh from blowing up the
Fed
> building. The fact that he didn't realize flying a
> plane into it would have had a bigger impact, is
> somewhat circumstantial..
>
> Additionally, your use of 'we' is a bit curious.
For
> instance, 'I' don't feel I was attacked on 9/11.
In
> fact, I sometimes feel like I have more in common
with
> Mexico than NYC - borders be damned..Ways NYC
> attacked? Who was attacked? My point is -
diminish
> the superpower, and you diminish the target as
well as
> the cause..
>
> d
>
> --- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
>
> > David:
> >
> > Two reasons:
> >
> > 1. As a civilized people, we care more about
killing
> > innocents than
> > our enemies (the islamofascists) do.
> > This requires lots of troops, technology, and
money.
> >
> > 2. We have way more to lose. Al qaeda and other
> > terrorist groups and
> > their state sponsors would consider a nuke going
off
> > in a us city a
> > great victory. We would take no such pleasure in
> > nuking tehrhan for
> > instance. So we are always playing defense.
> > Technology has advanced so
> > much that fortress america is no longer feasible
nor
> > wise. That's why
> > we need to project our force and intelligence -
to
> > pre-empt disaster.
> >
> > > Derek - Question for you - If it's so easy to
> > attack
> > > countries from afar these days, why doesn't
the US
> > > military solely adopt this approach? Why have
> > military
> > > bases in 100+ countries, secret prisons and
> > interfere
> > > with foreign governments when they can simply
lob
> > a
> > > cruise missile over?
> > >
> > > Seems like a more defensive stance would save
a
> > ton of
> > > money and there would be no question as to
whether
> > US
> > > meddling had resulted in additional wars or
> > terrorist
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > d.
> > >
> > > --- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael:
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad you mentioned the quotation by
Randolph
> > > > Bourne. In Bourne's
> > > > day, America was protected by two very wide
> > oceans.
> > > > At the time of
> > > > his death in 1918 there had never been a
> > > > transatlantic flight, and
> > > > nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver
them
> > were
> > > > unknown.
> > > >
> > > > Mounting an effective and sustainable
invasion
> > of
> > > > America was beyond
> > > > the capabilities of the vast majority of
> > nations.
> > > > Self-defense was
> > > > relatively easy and inexpensive for the US.
In
> > > > addition, America had
> > > > much more of an economically
> > > > self-sufficient economy than could be
possible
> > in
> > > > today's globalization.
> > > >
> > > > So, the isolationist approach to foreign
policy
> > made
> > > > some sense then.
> > > > Today, however, it would be an extremely
> > dangerous
> > > > way to conduct
> > > > foreign policy.
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > > > > Derek,
> > > > >
> > > > > In his article, Max Borders writes:
> > > > > "Is it possible for one to be libertarian
> > about
> > > > policies at home and
> > > > > neo-conservative about policies abroad?"
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer clearly is: It is not possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? As William Randolph Bourne
presciently
> > > > observed: "War is the
> > > > > health of the state." The state always
expands
> > > > domestically during
> > > > > wartime and never returns to its previous
> > smaller
> > > > size.
> > > > >
> > > > > A Big Govt libertarian abroad is of
necessity
> > a
> > > > Big Govt libertarian
> > > > > at home.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best, Michael
=== message truncated ===
Mr. Jensen, could you please cite the reference, from which you
determine that Bin Laden made the demands you list?
Thanks,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
David:
You asked me why not go to a defensive stance and rely on missle
technology. I thought my two answers addressed this question
straight-on. I take Osama Bin Laden's word at face value when he
stated that the United States must convert to Islam, ditch its
constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto
climate change treaty. In addition, his terms of surrender for
America include the barring of alcohol, gambling, and women's
photos
in newspapers or advertising.
Sound good?
Remember: we can have peace right now if we just accept these
conditions. Or we can continue to fight the Islamofascists on
their
own turf. This is why I think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
was a
Derek, You repeatedly assert that things are different now " In
Bourne's
> > > day, America was protected by two very wide
> oceans.
> > > At the time of
> > > his death in 1918 there had never been a
> > > transatlantic flight, and
> > > nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them
> were
> > > unknown". and other such statements.
Things are essentially the same, there was no radar or radio
in the old days. A British fleet could if the wind was right and
the moon dark, sail up the chesapeake and burn Washington
with no warning. The British burned Washington to the
ground i814. New York was even more vulnerable to even a
small country. Having your city burrned by a Nuclear weapon
or a British torch is only a matter of degree not of principle.
George Washington laid out the Nations proper foreign policy
in his farewell speach in September of 1796 in Annapolis
Maryland. From what he knew the British or the French could
at that moment be taking Mount Vernon in a surprise attack.
The principles he laid out then remain as true today as they
did then. Excessive hatred or excessive hatred of any country
is dangerous. Nuetrality should be the objective of our foreign
policy.
Certainly we had no reason to be involved with Iraq. The
entire affair was due to excessive hatred on the part of the
President and minions at Fox News. Had George
Washington been alive, he probably would have come out of
retirement to oppose Bush. Congress certainly did not do it's
constitutional duty to declare war and to the proper due
diligence before making that decision.
Might I say that if we still had our Constitutional Republic, the
government would have had no way to go lightly into war
because it would not have the money. The income tax was
never properly ratified and the Federa; Reserve and Bretton
Woods are both are both clearly prohibited by the
Constitution, both never properly vetted by the courts.
Ignoring the constitution does have it's sconsequences. The
pity is the hegemony of the dollar is coming to an end.soon it
will be china will be China with seven carrier groups that can
chase down anybody in the whole freakin and kill them
without a trial or even ID chart.
The world has plenty of reason to hate for our economic
hegemony in the form of Brettonn Woods imposed at the
world at the point of a gun at the approaching peak ofUS has
ben the onlyy country that does not have to pay it's bills and
can simply print it's debt, and thus afford world military
hegeemony on debt including bases in the holyiest country in
Islam and maintenance of dictatorships throughout that world.
Wouldn't you be po'd if Saudi Arabia installed a pro Islam
governmnet in Washington and had bases all over the US to
help maintain order.
This country has done everything George Washington said
not to do since 1917.
As for Saddam, He was a dictator, our method of dealing with
dictators was Mutually Assured Destruction. This strtegy had
our been our preminent foreign and military for over 55 years,
it had held Stalin, Kruschev and every other madman in
check for all that time. What made Saddam different that a
longstanding strategic principlie was abandoned. This broke
an even more longstanding American principle, "If it aint
fibroken don't fix it".
Congress should have put out a nice constitutional reward of
say 500 million bucks for osamas head and thats the end of
it.
I saw a great bumper sticker the other day.
" Osama's Free, Are You?
If we are to maintain a big tent for the Libertarian party,
maybe we should ammend the pledge to say we will allow the
initiation of force on people who might be preparing to initiate
force on us someday because they must be hiding from
inspectors who are crawling all over thier country,but are not
allowed in thier holy places or presidential palaces.
Frankly, I think pro war Libertarians are an embarrasment and
are not clear on the concept of initiation of force.only in
response to a clear and present threat. I will make it clear in
my campaign for congress that I think a pro war Libertarian, is
an oxy moron.
Saddam Hussain was not a threat to the US and maintaing
stability in Iraq was in our interest as George the elder
clearly understand.
Does the US need to arrest torture and kill innocent Muslims
just because some esposouse a radical hatred. Do we need
to suspend the magna carta and the first and and fifth
amendments with the patriot act. We fought wwII and the
cold war with out the so called Patriot act.
And finally Derek, Renata wants me to go to bed, I will repeat,
If we did not have the dammed Federal Reserve to keep
forever printing more and more dollars, the cost of this war
would have been immediatly seen in interest rates or taxes,
and be over by now.
This war has radicalized a lot of young people throughout the
moslem world and made things a heck a lot more dangerous
for us and the next generation.
It is just plain sad that people that believe in the war and
believe in the Fox News pipedream that all is right with the
economy and that debt and deficits piling up to infinity do not
matter and in fact are a sign of economic strength, that
people such as these run around calling themselves
Linbertarians.
Is one not espousing the initiation of force when one is a
position of influence and states that the economic and
banking suystem operates freely and without force and fraud.
Is one not espousing the initiation when one supports the
initiation and continuation of a war where the initial
justification could have undermined if Congress had done it's
duty before hand.
If one is not troubled by espousing the initiation of force isn't it
best if one self identifies as something other than Libertarian.
The principles he laid out then remain as true today as they
did then. Excessive hatred or excessive hatred of any country
is dangerous. Nuetrality should be the objective of our foreign
policy.
---->DJ: Neutral like Belgium in 1914 or 1940? Neutral like we were
when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
Certainly we had no reason to be involved with Iraq. The
entire affair was due to excessive hatred on the part of the
President and minions at Fox News. Had George
Washington been alive, he probably would have come out of
retirement to oppose Bush. Congress certainly did not do it's
constitutional duty to declare war and to the proper due
diligence before making that decision.
---->DJ- Saddam was paying a bounty to palestinian bombers killing
innocent Jews. His secret police were torturing political dissidents.
Throwing them into meat grinders, by one witness's account. Rape
rooms, gassing the Kurds, and on and on. At what point does a
civilized people stand up and say ENOUGH!?
Might I say that if we still had our Constitutional Republic, the
government would have had no way to go lightly into war
because it would not have the money.
The income tax was never properly ratified
-----> DJ: I agree
and the Federa; Reserve and Bretton
Woods are both are both clearly prohibited by the
Constitution,
--->DJ: Can you show me why you believe the Federal Reserve is
prohibited by the courts?
both never properly vetted by the courts.
Ignoring the constitution does have it's sconsequences. The
pity is the hegemony of the dollar is coming to an end.soon it
will be china will be China with seven carrier groups that can
chase down anybody in the whole freakin and kill them
without a trial or even ID chart.
The world has plenty of reason to hate for our economic
hegemony in the form of Brettonn Woods imposed at the
world at the point of a gun at the approaching peak ofUS has
ben the onlyy country that does not have to pay it's bills and
can simply print it's debt, and thus afford world military
hegeemony on debt including bases in the holyiest country in
Islam and maintenance of dictatorships throughout that world.
--->DJ: We saved Saudi Arabia from certain overrun by Saddam in late 1990.
Wouldn't you be po'd if Saudi Arabia installed a pro Islam
governmnet in Washington and had bases all over the US to
help maintain order.
--->DJ: Yes. Big time. That's why I support efforts today to make
sure this never becomes a reality or a threat.
This country has done everything George Washington said
not to do since 1917.
As for Saddam, He was a dictator, our method of dealing with
dictators was Mutually Assured Destruction.
--->DJ: How about Saddam Assured Destruction? Why wait until it gets
to "mutual"? Look at how many perished in Stalin's gulags. Had it
not been for the Rosenberg's and others helping the Reds get the bomb,
things very well could have been very different, with far far less
human suffering at the hands of those Bolshevik beasts.
This strtegy had
our been our preminent foreign and military for over 55 years,
it had held Stalin, Kruschev and every other madman in
check for all that time. What made Saddam different that a
longstanding strategic principlie was abandoned. This broke
an even more longstanding American principle, "If it aint
fibroken don't fix it".
--->DJ: Held them in check? To me, the story of the 20th century is
the blood shed of millions at the hands of the Communists and Fascists
that you say were held in check.
Congress should have put out a nice constitutional reward of
say 500 million bucks for osamas head and thats the end of
it.
--->DJ: We have one now for $100 million. It's not working. If $100
million isn't working why do you think $500 million will? This shows
why Letters of Marquis and Reprisal are laregly ineffective.
I saw a great bumper sticker the other day.
" Osama's Free, Are You?
--->DJ: I don't feel very free, but certainly more free than Osama,
who I bet does not sleep very well. I certainly haven't given a
friend of mine a pistol with orders to shoot me when the Army Rangers
knock on my door. Osama has.
If we are to maintain a big tent for the Libertarian party,
maybe we should ammend the pledge to say we will allow the
initiation of force on people who might be preparing to initiate
force on us someday because they must be hiding from
inspectors who are crawling all over thier country,but are not
allowed in thier holy places or presidential palaces.
Frankly, I think pro war Libertarians are an embarrasment and
are not clear on the concept of initiation of force.only in
response to a clear and present threat. I will make it clear in
my campaign for congress that I think a pro war Libertarian, is
an oxy moron.
--->DJ: Phil, I understand you have strong feelings on this as I do.
I think any airtime you get in your campaign though, (which I do
intend to support you on), will be better spent on other issues than
parsing the precise meaning of a Libertarian for the general
electorate.
Saddam Hussain was not a threat to the US and maintaing
stability in Iraq was in our interest as George the elder
clearly understand.
Does the US need to arrest torture and kill innocent Muslims
just because some esposouse a radical hatred.
--->DJ: No. I'm against torture. It's never justifiable.
Do we need
to suspend the magna carta and the first and and fifth
amendments with the patriot act. We fought wwII and the
cold war with out the so called Patriot act.
--->DJ: I don't know why you bring up the Magna Carta as it is not the
law of our land. The Patriot Act is a disgrace and should be removed
immediately
And finally Derek, Renata wants me to go to bed, I will repeat,
If we did not have the dammed Federal Reserve to keep
forever printing more and more dollars, the cost of this war
would have been immediatly seen in interest rates or taxes,
and be over by now.
--->DJ: I agree the cost of the war would be more immediately seen in
interest rates or taxes, but I disagree that it would be over.
This war has radicalized a lot of young people throughout the
moslem world and made things a heck a lot more dangerous
for us and the next generation.
--->DJ: Well, lot's of people don't like it when they don't get their
way. If they choose to attack US interests or our allies, then I'll
be happy to help them get to Allah and the 1,000 virgins sooner rather
than later.
It is just plain sad that people that believe in the war and
believe in the Fox News pipedream that all is right with the
economy and that debt and deficits piling up to infinity do not
matter and in fact are a sign of economic strength, that
people such as these run around calling themselves
Linbertarians.
---->DJ: In fact do think the economy is going quite well right now.
Is one not espousing the initiation of force when one is a
position of influence and states that the economic and
banking suystem operates freely and without force and fraud.
--->DJ: The terms "economic and banking system" are too broad to make
such sweeping statements. Do I believe the economic and banking
systems are totally free and without fraud? No, of course not. Do I
believe that the US has the best economic and banking system in the
world today? Yes. But we should strive to improve it by making it
more free. It's going to take awhile though.
Is one not espousing the initiation when one supports the
initiation and continuation of a war where the initial
justification could have undermined if Congress had done it's
duty before hand.
--->DJ: This shows why the "initiation of force" pledge is an inkblot.
Saddam initiated force against our allies, minorities in his country,
and tortured Iraqis. He also was developing chemical and biological
weapons. To me, we are responding to his initiation of force. Phil,
if you and I are ever walking down the street, and someone jumps out
to rob you, I promise that I will help defend you. Should I just
stand there and watch even though the robber has not "initiated force"
against me?
If one is not troubled by espousing the initiation of force isn't it
best if one self identifies as something other than Libertarian.
--->DJ: I'm sorry you feel this way. I think you'll find there are a
lot more people identifying as Libertarians that support the war than
you might believe there are. Certainly within San Francisco I'm an
anomaly.
Phil:
I will add that these arguments go at least all the way back to the
Rothbard / WFB arguments concerning how to contain Communism while
providing for maximum freedom in the US. Witness Rothbard cheering
Kruschev in NYC because "he's killed fewer people than Eisenhower"
Today's so called anti-war movement is the legacy of such thought.
-Derek
Nice chart.
Thanks, I'll do a bit of research on this and get back to the group.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
Allen:
See here, among other places
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051119-114945-8042r.htm
>
> Mr. Jensen, could you please cite the reference, from which you
> determine that Bin Laden made the demands you list?
>
> Thanks,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > David:
> >
> > You asked me why not go to a defensive stance and rely on
missle
> > technology. I thought my two answers addressed this question
> > straight-on. I take Osama Bin Laden's word at face value when
he
> > stated that the United States must convert to Islam, ditch its
> > constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the
Kyoto
Looks solid; I ordered a copy from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844670457/104-0068436-3546330?
v=glance&n=283155
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
Allen:
See here, among other places
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051119-114945-8042r.htm
>
> Mr. Jensen, could you please cite the reference, from which you
> determine that Bin Laden made the demands you list?
>
> Thanks,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > David:
> >
> > You asked me why not go to a defensive stance and rely on
missle
> > technology. I thought my two answers addressed this question
> > straight-on. I take Osama Bin Laden's word at face value when
he
> > stated that the United States must convert to Islam, ditch its
> > constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the
Kyoto