Ron,
Since I doubt President Bush will get back to you, I'll give you my
response. 8) I believe everyone in the world deserves the benefits of
living in a libertarian society. Within these societies, they would be
free to form voluntary communities with different values, standards,
and rules, as long as they did not attempt to force them on others. As
Chris Maden stated in a previous email, that's a key facet of
libertarianism -- it is compatible with all kinds of diverse cultures,
values and beliefs as long as they are peaceful, whereas statist
systems are not.
I don't think individual liberty is an "American" value. It is a
contradiction in terms to speak of "forcing" libertarianism on anyone,
imho, because it is by definition the state of affairs in which people
are not subject to legal coercion. (While it may not be possible to
abolish coercion entirely, that ought to be the light by which we set
our bearings.) The Japanese have largely embraced "American" values of
government despite this "foreign value system" being "imposed by force"
after WWII, and Japan is now the second-wealthiest country in the world.
Property rights, civil liberties like free speech, religious
plurality, the right to self defense, the right to self-medicate, and
freedom from economic regulations and controls are not American or
Judeo-Christian values any more than they are Arabian or Islamic
values. These values are more prevalent in developed Western countries
not *because* of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but in spite of it. The
spirit of scientific enlightenment that flourished in the "Age of
Reason" and the example of Athenian democracy handed down from ancient
Greece have done much more to help Europe and America escape the
shackles of state oppression than the Judeo-Christian influence. If the
popes and rabbis had gotten their way, we'd still be living in the Dark
Ages.
The governments of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia should each start by
writing a good, secular, libertarian-style constitution, and seeing
that any official who knowingly violates its terms immediately loses
his or her job and is banned from government employment. Implement a
jury system for all offenses, cease prosecuting any victimless crimes,
and invite non-governmental civics organizations and libertarians from
other countries to come in and teach people about exercising their
rights in a free society. Privatize significant state-owned assets such
as mosques and Islamic holy sites and give them to peaceful religious
groups in order to cultivate goodwill among the moderate religious
majority and make it clear that the separation of church and state
isn't an attack on Islam. Meanwhile, defund the extremist madrasas
(religious schools) that are currently teaching jihad, hatred of Jews,
and other harmful doctrines, and create incentives for victims of
violence to bring lawsuits against the fundamentalist clerics and
organizations who sponsor and incite such acts. Establish new political
parties, NGOs, and independent media outlets, with state support at
first if necessary to get the ball rolling. After a suitable length of
time has gone by and these fundamental institutions have gotten on
their feet, start holding elections. Begin at the local level in small
jurisdictions, so that people can be taught about the electoral process
as it is established, and elections can be closely monitored for any
abuses, and gradually expand to other areas and to the national level.
We no longer see "domestic violence" as more acceptable than street
violence, even within a voluntary marriage -- we urge the police to
intervene in true cases of spousal and child abuse. If the officers
come from a different national, ethnic or cultural background than the
family, this is not particularly important. Can there be any doubt of
the horrible abuses being perpetrated by various governments, including
many in the Middle East, against "their" citizens? Why should an entire
country be off-limits to outside action to correct serious and
systematic abuses, when the validity of external intervention is
recognized even in intimate family situations? What "imperial right" do
members of the Saudi royal family have to maintain their legal
privileges and enforce their statist and strict Islamic views of
government over all the people of Saudi Arabia in violation of those
peoples' inalienable natural rights?
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Everyone;
Starchild in part said he thought Bush gave a good speech calling
for greater democracy in the Arab world and reform in Egypt, Syria
Saudi Arabia.Perhaps Bush or Starchild could explain which version of democracy
they would like to see installed in Iraq or Arabia.L. Paul Bremer, America's chief postwar Iraq administrator said in
part, " The United States will help write an interim Iraqi
constitution that embodies American values and will lead to the
creation of a new government. The interim constitution will also
provide in a limited time, probably two years, for a permanent
constitution to be written that also embodies American values."How do you impose a foreign cultural value system on another people?
What force do you use on other people to make them adapt a foreign
cultural value system? Do you also force them to accept new moral,
ethical, civil and religious values in their daily lives so they
will be more eager to agree to a new foreign value system?American cultural democracy is based on a Judeo-Christian value
system which evolved in western Europe over several hundred years.
In Iraq you have an Arabic cultural value system which evolved over
several hundred years based on the Muslim religion.What imperial right does the Bush administration have to brush aside
several hundred years of Arabic-Muslim cultural values and by fiat
or force install an American style democracy value system in Iraq?Perhaps someone could give an explanation of this.
This imposition of democracy is the direct antithesis of Libertarian
principles. How could someone support the Bush version of democracy
in Iraq where it would be forced on the Iraqis whether they liked it
or not?Ron Getty
SF Libertarian--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:Chris,
I wasn't aware of "us" doing anything in Iraq. I did (and
do) support
the U.S. government's military action against Saddam Hussein's
regime.
My enthusiasm for it was rather lukewarm due to the methods used,
the
funding, and the context of other abuses in the "war on
terrorism," but
on balance I believe it was a step in the right direction. I also
thought Bush gave a good speech recently calling for greaterdemocracy
in the Arab world and specifically mentioning the need for reform
in
Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos