Using force to overthrow a totalitarian state or a pre-emptive strike against a known aggressor is still outside the pale as far as true Libertarianism is concerned unless the totalitarian or the aggressor actually attacked the USA. Otherwise any such attacks are verboten by true Libertarians. It is cut and dried as that - no equivicating allowed or what ifs…
Why?
Lady Aster 
{)(*)(}
email ms_shiris@… 
Dear Lady Aster;
Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually non-existent therefore there is no State to attack another State.
I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and it should answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little long - but well worth taking the time to read.
If it doesn't answer your - why - please get back with me as there are more of the same available from a variety of Libertarians - but I like Bastiat's way of saying things - as he was a Libertarian but didn't know he was one - and sadly his philospohical voice got cut short due to ill-health.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Dear Derek;
Shame shame shame - you are certainly more capable of writing
something better than what you wrote -
you are comparing apples and oranges by comparing infanticide to the
choices a woman must make based on her personal situation as to
whether or not have an abortion.
Infanticide which is very prevalent in China if a girl child is born
has created problems today where the men out number the women and
women choose to have a choice of jobs or marriage and jobs seems to
have won out.
But really Derek can't you do just a little bit better?
If you want to know the answer to your statement of course a family
has a choice to commit infanticide if it so chooses - it's their
choice. Unh Hunh!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
BTW: Would you support the sentiments in the paragraph below? (note
the bracketed language I've inserted)
On the matter of [Derekism] I take the stance that there should be
no laws pro or con on the issue and each [Derekism] should be able
to decide for [Derekism] based on their personal situation as to
what they must do. In other words any and every law conserning
[Derekism] should be stricken from the books as an untoward invasion
of a person personal rights to decide for themselves and take
responsibility for their personal decison - without the
STATE interferring.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Ron:
Would you support the sentiments in the paragraph below? (note the
bracketed
language I've inserted)
On the matter of [infanticide] I take the stance that there should
be no
laws pro or con on the issue and each [family] should be able to
decide for
[itself] based on their personal situation as to what they must
do. In other
words any and every law conserning [infanticide] should be
stricken from the
books as an untoward invasion of a person personal rights to
decide for
themselves and take responsibility for their personal decison -
without the
STATE interferring.
>
> Dear Lady Aster;
>
> Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually non-
existent
> therefore there is no State to attack another State.
>
> I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and
it should
> answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little long -
but well
> worth taking the time to read.
>
> If it doesn't answer your - why - please get back with me as
there are
> more of the same available from a variety of Libertarians - but
I like
> Bastiat's way of saying things - as he was a Libertarian but
didn't know he
> was one - and sadly his philospohical voice got cut short due to
ill-health.
>
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> http://www.mises.org/story/1992
>
> From: Lady Aster <ms_shiris@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 5:00:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Slightly Off Topic and Out Of
Kilter -
> Hitler's Indian Restaurant
>
> *Using force to overthrow a totalitarian state or a pre-emptive
strike
> against a known aggressor is still outside the pale as far as
true
> Libertarianism is concerned unless the totalitarian or the
aggressor
> actually attacked the USA. Otherwise any such attacks are
verboten by true
> Libertarians. It is cut and dried as that - no equivicating
allowed or what
> ifs....*
>
> Why?
>
> *Lady Aster*
>
> {*)*(***)*(*}
> *Freude, schöner Götterfunken * *Tochter aus Elysium, * *Wir
betreten
> feuertrunken, * *Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! * *Deine Zauber
binden wieder
> * *Was die Mode streng geteilt.* *Alle Menschen werden Brüder*
*Wo dein
> sanfter Flügel weilt.*
>
> email ms_shiris@...
>
> Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE
Windows
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually non-existent therefore there is no State to attack another State.
Granted; as I’ve said I’m ultimately an anarchist. But even in anarchism we would have community defense groups which would face some of the same issues of foreign policy as modern states, if on a different scale. And individuals would still be free to volunteer for wars of liberarian, as in L. Niel Smith’s novel The Probability Broach or the historical Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Or what about the Haitian Revolution? Is it unlibertarian if, having liberated oneself, one’s aids in the liberation of the next sugar plantation?
If I was trapped in a slave state like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, I would want a foreign country to topple my government- altho’ not to engage in indiscriminate terror-bombing or any possibly avoidable ‘collateral damage’ (and even so, I’ve read the inmates of Auschwitz would have greatly preferred Allied bombing of extermination camp operations). This is an issue that speaks very personally to me, having grown up in a physically and emotionally abusive family and watched a world which looked the other way regard the abuse as essentially my parents’ business, to the complete disregard of my liberty and human rights. Now granted, most governments engaged in foreign intervention, like most child protective services, are motivated by anything but a respect for liberty. I think most wars conducted under the rhetoric of liberating slaves are motivated in truth by power politics and imperialism and do little to liberate their victims (witness the U.S. feeding Afghani and Iraqi women back to the Islamists). But that still doesn’t counter the principle of a war of liberation. What about assassinationist foreign policies that narrowly target foreign leaders and/or their military forces? Again, states are likely to do this badly (modern Israel, for example), but that doesn’t affect the validity of liberatory wars on principle. States after all conduct national self-defense badly too.
I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and it should answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little long - but well worth taking the time to read.
Oh, I know Bastiat. And I don’t find it so long… I mean, like, I did read Hegel and Heidegger in college. My reaction is mixed; a great deal of it sounds like an early version of Rand’s theories of producers and looters. And this libertarian sociology of war, as I’ve said elsewhere, strongly resembles that of modern feminist theory. These parts I quite like… but I’m not terribly attracted to either the utilitarianism or to the distinct whiff of Adam Smith’s version of the Protestant Ethic. (I believe Murray Rothbard rightly called out Smith for reading Protestant values into the laws of economics).
But the essay says little in relation to the points I raise, except perhaps to suggest the unwisdom of military occupation even for a liberatory cause. The essay deals with war as predation and why it is ruinuous in spirit and economy; it says nothing against the use of force purely against coercers. I see no reason why one could not follow Bastiat to Randian foreign policy conclusion or the somewhat less bloodthirsty views I hold (unlike Rand I’m not willing to be blind to imperialism or 'collateral damage and don’t reify the U.S. as history’s avatar of righteousness, but I do countenance wars of liberation against slave states).
love and strife,
Lady Aster
{)(*)(}
email ms_shiris@…
Aster,
Excellent reasoning! I feel that you are one of the few libertarians who has really grokked my perspective on military intervention. I especially like your point about how wars of liberation tending to be done badly "doesn't affect the validity of liberatory wars on principle. States after all conduct national self-defense badly too." Exactly! Both wars of "liberation" or "other defense" and wars of "self defense" involve that which is said to be the health of the state, but libertarians are generally willing to countenance one type much more than the other, regardless of the actual facts of the case.
Getting away from the obfuscating habit of only using intervention examples involving the United States, what makes it right for the government that claims jurisdiction over France, acting incompetently and out of questionable motives, to militarily intervene against rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, but wrong for the French government, acting incompetently and out of questionable motives, to militarily intervene against a military regime killing people in Algeria, if the people in Clichy-sous-Bois have no more desire for the French military to be operating in the region where they live than do the people in Algeria? What if the members of the military regime ruling the region called "Algeria" are not from that region themselves? Or what if most of them are from a minority clan whose members mostly live in only one part of Algeria, and they seized power over the whole nation by force? Should that affect claims of exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty that they might launch in protest against the actions of the French government's military? What if this military force sent by the government claiming jurisdiction over France is itself mostly made up of ethnic Algerians who see themselves as fighting for their homeland? Does the fact that they are taking orders from Paris make them foreign interventionists?
Are rebels morally bound to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn by rulers? Are liberationist forces morally bound to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn by oppressive regimes? Taking your Haitian Revolution example and embellishing on history a bit, let's hypothetically say that rebelling slaves seized several sugar plantations in one valley and formed a local democratic tax-funded "government" in this area which achieved de facto independence significantly before the rest of Haiti was liberated, and say the colonial authorities credibly promised to leave them alone. Would it then have been right by libertarian principles for this government to seek to liberate other plantations in Haiti outside its jurisdiction? How about for it to seek to liberate people on the other side of the pre-existing border dividing the island of Hispaniola, in the Dominican Republic?
Or, since this hypothetical government had already established its jurisdiction (the valley it controlled), would it have been un-libertarian "foreign intervention" for it to seek to liberate slaves outside this jurisdiction on other plantations in Haiti? Or would it have been libertarian so long as the slaves on those other plantations shared a common language, culture, geographical identity, ethnic background, etc., but un-libertarian if the other slaves did not have so much in common with the people in the valley? Where does one draw the line?
With the world becoming more and more interconnected and cross-pollenated, and national distinctions coming to matter less and less, questions about where to draw the line become more and more relevant. Ultimately, I think such questions reveal the shaky philosophical foundations on which the nationalist libertarian theory of military non-intervention is based.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild-
I agree with you somewhat; I do feel it necessary to point out that from our previous discussions it feels as if you defend quite a number of more wars in practice than I would. I do find myself ending up on a concrete anti-war side perhaps 90% of the time, while with you I’d place 60% as my random figure.
On the Algerian question, I think it’s important to consider the fact that Algeria is a former French colony, when gained independence in a bloody and bloodily countered revolution, and that European ‘human rights’ interventions in African countries have this strange habit of being based from the countries of the former imperial overlords. I don’t know enough about the contemporary case you site to make any final judgements, but I remain awfully suspicious.
love and strife,
Lady Aster
{)(*)(}
email ms_shiris@…
Aster,
I strongly suspect you're right that in practice I would tend to defend military interventions more often than you do. Perhaps this is because you are more likely to see racism at work in the interventions? On the other hand, one might also credibly find racism at work in the *failure* to intervene -- I'm thinking of cases such as Rwanda, Zaire, and Sudan. But thinking about this a bit more, I believe that geo-political considerations, low expectations, and class bias are all more to blame for non-intervention than racism. The potential for being charged with racism may also tend to tie the hands of would-be interveners in African conflicts a bit more than might be the case with conflicts in other parts of the world --- more the misfortune of the people in those conflict-ridden African countries.
I suppose you might see the low expectations as themselves a form of racism, but if so it is a charge that would seem to apply equally to supporters of racial preferences who say that members of ethnic minorities could not compete fairly without such preferences. My view as you might expect is that the empirical data of past experience provides a more than ample basis for someone to have low expectations of positive outcomes in most of Africa, just as past experience makes having low expectations of positive outcomes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an equally reasonable position. Nevertheless, I do not see low expectations as a strong argument against intervention; what matters is not how grim the overall situation looks, but what difference an intervention is likely to make.
BTW, I picked Algeria for my example precisely because it is a region where governments claiming jurisdiction over France have used military force in the past, and might conceivably do so again. However the specifics of the example were not based on any real-world events.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild-
I agree with you somewhat; I do feel it necessary to point out that from our previous discussions it feels as if you defend quite a number of more wars in practice than I would. I do find myself ending up on a concrete anti-war side perhaps 90% of the time, while with you I'd place 60% as my random figure.
On the Algerian question, I think it's important to consider the fact that Algeria is a former French colony, when gained independence in a bloody and bloodily countered revolution, and that European 'human rights' interventions in African countries have this strange habit of being based from the countries of the former imperial overlords. I don't know enough about the contemporary case you site to make any final judgements, but I remain awfully suspicious.
love and strife,
Lady Aster <image.tiff>
{)(*)(}
Freude, schˆner Gˆtterfunken
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt.
Alle Menschen werden Br¸der
Wo dein sanfter Fl¸gel weilt.
<image.tiff> email ms_shiris@... <image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
Reply-To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] libertarianism and war
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:56:05 -0700
>Aster,
>
> Excellent reasoning! I feel that you are one of the few
>libertarians who has really grokked my perspective on military
>intervention. I especially like your point about how wars of
>liberation tending to be done badly "doesn't affect the validity of
>liberatory wars on principle. States after all conduct national
>self-defense badly too." Exactly! Both wars of "liberation" or
>"other defense" and wars of "self defense" involve that which is
>said to be the health of the state, but libertarians are generally
>willing to countenance one type much more than the other, regardless
>of the actual facts of the case.
>
> Getting away from the obfuscating habit of only using intervention
>examples involving the United States, what makes it right for the
>government that claims jurisdiction over France, acting
>incompetently and out of questionable motives, to militarily
>intervene against rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, but wrong for the
>French government, acting incompetently and out of questionable
>motives, to militarily intervene against a military regime killing
>people in Algeria, if the people in Clichy-sous-Bois have no more
>desire for the French military to be operating in the region where
>they live than do the people in Algeria? What if the members of the
>military regime ruling the region called "Algeria" are not from that
>region themselves? Or what if most of them are from a minority clan
>whose members mostly live in only one part of Algeria, and they
>seized power over the whole nation by force? Should that affect
>claims of exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty that they might
>launch in protest against the actions of the French government's
>military? What if this military force sent by the government
>claiming jurisdiction over France is itself mostly made up of ethnic
>Algerians who see themselves as fighting for their homeland? Does
>the fact that they are taking orders from Paris make them foreign
>interventionists?
>
> Are rebels morally bound to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn
>by rulers? Are liberationist forces morally bound to respect the
>jurisdictional lines drawn by oppressive regimes? Taking your
>Haitian Revolution example and embellishing on history a bit, let's
>hypothetically say that rebelling slaves seized several sugar
>plantations in one valley and formed a local democratic tax-funded
>"government" in this area which achieved de facto independence
>significantly before the rest of Haiti was liberated, and say the
>colonial authorities credibly promised to leave them alone. Would it
>then have been right by libertarian principles for this government
>to seek to liberate other plantations in Haiti outside its
>jurisdiction? How about for it to seek to liberate people on the
>other side of the pre-existing border dividing the island of
>Hispaniola, in the Dominican Republic?
>
> Or, since this hypothetical government had already established its
>jurisdiction (the valley it controlled), would it have been
>un-libertarian "foreign intervention" for it to seek to liberate
>slaves outside this jurisdiction on other plantations in Haiti? Or
>would it have been libertarian so long as the slaves on those other
>plantations shared a common language, culture, geographical
>identity, ethnic background, etc., but un-libertarian if the other
>slaves did not have so much in common with the people in the valley?
>Where does one draw the line?
>
> With the world becoming more and more interconnected and
>cross-pollenated, and national distinctions coming to matter less
>and less, questions about where to draw the line become more and
>more relevant. Ultimately, I think such questions reveal the shaky
>philosophical foundations on which the nationalist libertarian
>theory of military non-intervention is based.
>
>Love & liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>>Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually
>>non-existent therefore there is no State to attack another State.
>>
>>Granted; as I've said I'm ultimately an anarchist. But even in
>>anarchism we would have community defense groups which would face
>>some of the same issues of foreign policy as modern states, if on a
>>different scale. And individuals would still be free to volunteer
>>for wars of liberarian, as in L. Niel Smith's novel The Probability
>>Broach or the historical Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish
>>Civil War. Or what about the Haitian Revolution? Is it
>>unlibertarian if, having liberated oneself, one's aids in the
>>liberation of the next sugar plantation?
>>
>>If I was trapped in a slave state like Nazi Germany or Soviet
>>Russia, I would want a foreign country to topple my government-
>>altho' not to engage in indiscriminate terror-bombing or any
>>possibly avoidable 'collateral damage' (and even so, I've read the
>>inmates of Auschwitz would have greatly preferred Allied bombing of
>>extermination camp operations). This is an issue that speaks very
>>personally to me, having grown up in a physically and
>>emotionally abusive family and watched a world which looked the
>>other way regard the abuse as essentially my parents' business, to
>>the complete disregard of *my* liberty and human rights. Now
>>granted, most governments engaged in foreign intervention, like
>>most child protective services, are motivated by anything but a
>>respect for liberty. I think most wars conducted under the
>>rhetoric of liberating slaves are motivated in truth by power
>>politics and imperialism and do little to liberate their victims
>>(witness the U.S. feeding Afghani and Iraqi women back to the
>>Islamists). But that still doesn't counter the principle of a war
>>of liberation. What about assassinationist foreign policies that
>>narrowly target foreign leaders and/or their military forces?
>>Again, states are likely to do this badly (modern Israel, for
>>example), but that doesn't affect the validity of liberatory wars
>>on principle. States after all conduct national self-defense badly
>>too.
>>
>>I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and it
>>should answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little
>>long - but well worth taking the time to read.
>>
>>Oh, I know Bastiat. And I don't find it so long... I mean, like, I
>>did read Hegel and Heidegger in college. My reaction is mixed; a
>>great deal of it sounds like an early version of Rand's theories of
>>producers and looters. And this libertarian sociology of war, as
>>I've said elsewhere, strongly resembles that of modern feminist
>>theory. These parts I quite like... but I'm not terribly attracted
>>to either the utilitarianism or to the distinct whiff of Adam
>>Smith's version of the Protestant Ethic. (I believe Murray Rothbard
>>rightly called out Smith for reading Protestant values into the
>>laws of economics).
>>
>>But the essay says little in relation to the points I raise, except
>>perhaps to suggest the unwisdom of military occupation even for a
>>liberatory cause. The essay deals with war as predation and why it
>>is ruinuous in spirit and economy; it says nothing against the use
>>of force purely against coercers. I see no reason why one could
>>not follow Bastiat to Randian foreign policy conclusion or the
>>somewhat less bloodthirsty views I hold (unlike Rand I'm not
>>willing to be blind to imperialism or 'collateral damage and don't
>>reify the U.S. as history's avatar of righteousness, but I do
>>countenance wars of liberation against slave states).
>
<image.tiff>
Ok… sorry if I missed the example was fictional.
As for racism… wooooaaaa, man. That’s like a long way to go on assumptions. Actually my hesitance to support interventions, from an American foreign policy perspective, has more to do with a firm belief that U.S. foreign policy is generally, well- evil- than with anything else. The U.S. is far from the worst country domestically, but in terms of foreign policy America is clearly an Imperial power commited to bossing around as much of the world as it can and lying about it. I might have somewhat different views on interventions conducted in good faith by the United Nations (Rwanda would be a perfect example of a case where intervention was clearly justified).
But then there is the problem that many of the world’s worst human rights violations are either ground into the basic fabric of the societies in question or backed by prohibitive amounts of military power. The treatment of women in the Middle East is an example of the former; the repressions of communist China are an example of the latter.
BTW, I take it you didn;t get much sleep tonight either?
love and strife,
Lady Aster
{)(*)(}
email ms_shiris@…
Dear Lady Aster;
While you would countenance wars of Liberation against slave states ie: Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany and I also agree if you don't like what a country is doing go join the opposition forces ala the Abraham Lincoln Brigade or as those movie stars were complaining about what was happening in Sudan or Ethiopia or wherever. Do like Errol Flynn did or Hemingway go over and bring money and buy guns and arm the rebels and fight alongside the rebels. Put your money where your mouths are Hollywood. Just don't ask the USA to send its sons and daughters to fight somewhere because a Hollywood star says you should do so to help the poor down trodden being beset by rebel forces or army forces or whatever force.
On the matter of attacking a slave nation to free its people who takes over after the bad guys are gone - like say in Iraq - or Afghanistan. In both cases the previous rulers are gone and in both cases the people are no freer than they were and inactuality are worse off in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secondly to attack a slave nation who do you attack? The military - the rulers or anyone who gets in the way who becomes as collateral damage?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Starchild;
I regress back to George Washington's parting statement - no entangling alliances. Can you conceive how much better off America would be if we never had any entangling military alliances ever? The dead million soldiers who could have made a contribution to this country's growth and to the world through free-trade agreements instead of free-death agreements. Not to mention the vast billions in tax money wasted on the military-industrial complex?
Can you picture an America with very little national debt - who is genuinely respected around the world instead of being totally reviled around the world as an Imperialistic war-monger directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands - leaving out WWI and WWII? All those little banana wars throughout Central and South America - which continue today with the drug wars. The little brown brothers of the Phillipines and how the USA would help them?
Your statement: Ultimately, I think such questions reveal the shaky philosophical foundations on which the nationalist libertarian theory of military non-intervention is based.
This is not a shaky philosophical foundation and should be the bedrock of Libertarianism - as there is no justification anywhere at anytime which calls for America to invade another country unless directly attacked by that country here in the USA at our borders. And this would not be happening with the terrorists or Osama if we weren't war-mongering throughout the world over the last century and the Middle East.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Lady Aster;
Your suspicions are well justified.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Starchild;
On the African interventions - those brutal regimes you use as examples would collapse in a flash if their mighty rulers did not receive outside financial support propping them up through various UN - World Bank and corporate businesses - secondly in each of those countries you mention a very important things occurs - there are no property rights.
Give property rights back to the people and watch what happens to those rulers - and military intervention would not be required.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Lady Aster;
US Imperialism has a long history and it is an evil history. Take a look at this URL which details that Imperialism.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
This URL is an article saying a few things about the 700 or so USA military bases around the world. Talk about Imperialism an at what cost to taxpayers?
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1181
This web site gives an overview of all military operations and the plans for WWIV - yeah WWIV!!!!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/index.html
Obviously the plug needs to be pulled on the military-industrial complex and the hundreds of billions of stolen then wasted taxpayers dollars - the sooner the better.
USA out of the world!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Derek;
See my response to Mike Denny at Posting # 9328
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Ron:
I can see two possible reasons for your reaction to my question:
1: I have exposed the inconsistencies in your "pro-choice"
arguments
or
2. I have revealed your tacit support for a horrific practice.
I'll let your response stand on its own and allow the reader to
decide which
one it is.
-Derek
>
> Dear Derek;
>
> Shame shame shame - you are certainly more capable of writing
> something better than what you wrote -
>
> you are comparing apples and oranges by comparing infanticide to
the
> choices a woman must make based on her personal situation as to
> whether or not have an abortion.
>
> Infanticide which is very prevalent in China if a girl child is
born
> has created problems today where the men out number the women and
> women choose to have a choice of jobs or marriage and jobs seems
to
> have won out.
>
> But really Derek can't you do just a little bit better?
>
> If you want to know the answer to your statement of course a
family
> has a choice to commit infanticide if it so chooses - it's their
> choice. Unh Hunh!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> BTW: Would you support the sentiments in the paragraph below?
(note
>
> the bracketed language I've inserted)
>
> On the matter of [Derekism] I take the stance that there should
be
> no laws pro or con on the issue and each [Derekism] should be
able
> to decide for [Derekism] based on their personal situation as to
>
> what they must do. In other words any and every law conserning
> [Derekism] should be stricken from the books as an untoward
invasion
>
> of a person personal rights to decide for themselves and take
> responsibility for their personal decison - without the
> STATE interferring.
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ron:
> >
> > Would you support the sentiments in the paragraph below? (note
the
> bracketed
> > language I've inserted)
> >
> > On the matter of [infanticide] I take the stance that there
should
> be no
> > laws pro or con on the issue and each [family] should be able
to
> decide for
> > [itself] based on their personal situation as to what they must
> do. In other
> > words any and every law conserning [infanticide] should be
> stricken from the
> > books as an untoward invasion of a person personal rights to
> decide for
> > themselves and take responsibility for their personal decison -
> without the
> > STATE interferring.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Lady Aster;
> > >
> > > Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually
non-
> existent
> > > therefore there is no State to attack another State.
> > >
> > > I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war
and
> it should
> > > answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little
long -
> but well
> > > worth taking the time to read.
> > >
> > > If it doesn't answer your - why - please get back with me as
> there are
> > > more of the same available from a variety of Libertarians -
but
> I like
> > > Bastiat's way of saying things - as he was a Libertarian but
> didn't know he
> > > was one - and sadly his philospohical voice got cut short
due to
> ill-health.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > > http://www.mises.org/story/1992
> > >
> > > From: Lady Aster <ms_shiris@>
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> > > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 5:00:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Slightly Off Topic and Out Of
> Kilter -
> > > Hitler's Indian Restaurant
> > >
> > > *Using force to overthrow a totalitarian state or a pre-
emptive
> strike
> > > against a known aggressor is still outside the pale as far as
> true
> > > Libertarianism is concerned unless the totalitarian or the
> aggressor
> > > actually attacked the USA. Otherwise any such attacks are
> verboten by true
> > > Libertarians. It is cut and dried as that - no equivicating
> allowed or what
> > > ifs....*
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > *Lady Aster*
> > >
> > > {*)*(***)*(*}
> > > *Freude, schöner Götterfunken * *Tochter aus Elysium, * *Wir
> betreten
> > > feuertrunken, * *Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! * *Deine Zauber
> binden wieder
> > > * *Was die Mode streng geteilt.* *Alle Menschen werden
Brüder*
> *Wo dein
> > > sanfter Flügel weilt.*
> > >
> > > email ms_shiris@
>
> > >
> > > Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the
FREE
> Windows
> > > Live Toolbar Today! <http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2734??
PS=47575>
Dear All,
I had a most enjoyable talk yesterday with Mr. Paul Levinger, member
of the board of the War and Law League, an organization dedicated to
publicizing what is *illegal* about the current U.S. wars. We have
been discussing on this list what is "right" or "wrong" about
intervention; the War and Law League adds one more dimention to that
question, and asks what is legal or illegal. Mr. Levinger told me
about an upcoming event the War and Law Leage is sponsoring, and I
would like to pass on the information to you all. Some on this e-mail
list are members of the War and Law League, and no doubt already have
received notice of the event. I would love to see most of you
participate in the event described below, but I would especially like
to see the attendance of Phil, who is running on a "peace now"
platform, Starchild, who believes from the heart in extending freedom
beyond U.S. borders, and Derek, who has spoken in favor of a strong
U.S. defense. I will be going, the Fates willing; and I can fit three
who need a ride in my Toyota.
Regards,
Marcy
What: "Threat from Iran - Talk by the ex-CIA man who challenged
Rumsfeld." Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the CIA. Lots of
information if you Google his name.
Sponsors: The War and Law League, and the World Community Advocates.
When: September 24, 2006. Talk begins 12:45 pm. Questions will
follow until 2:00 pm.
Cost: FREE
Food: Optional light lunch (veggie according to Paul Levinger) for
$3.00 at 12:15 pm, or bring your brown bag.
Where: First Unitarian Universalist Church, Franklin and Geary, San
Francisco, M.L. King Room.
Public Transportation: MUNI 47 and 49 bus lines on Van Ness Ave, one
block east of Franklin, and 38 Geary bus, which connects with BART at
the Montgomery St. station.
Website: warandlaw.org
Dear Starchild;
On the African interventions - those brutal regimes you use as
examples would collapse in a flash if their mighty rulers did not
receive outside financial support propping them up through various UN
- World Bank and corporate businesses - secondly in each of those
countries you mention a very important things occurs - there are no
property rights.
Give property rights back to the people and watch what happens to
those rulers - and military intervention would not be required.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianFrom: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@...m
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:29:22 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] libertarianism and warAster,
I strongly suspect you're right that in practice I would tend to
defend military interventions more often than you do. Perhaps this is
because you are more likely to see racism at work in the interventions?
On the other hand, one might also credibly find racism at work in the
*failure* to intervene -- I'm thinking of cases such as Rwanda, Zaire,
and Sudan. But thinking about this a bit more, I believe that
geo-political considerations, low expectations, and class bias are all
more to blame for non-intervention than racism. The potential for being
charged with racism may also tend to tie the hands of would-be
interveners in African conflicts a bit more than might be the case with
conflicts in other parts of the world --- more the misfortune of the
people in those conflict-ridden African countries.I suppose you might see the low expectations as themselves a
form of
racism, but if so it is a charge that would seem to apply equally to
supporters of racial preferences who say that members of ethnic
minorities could not compete fairly without such preferences. My view
as you might expect is that the empirical data of past experience
provides a more than ample basis for someone to have low expectations
of positive outcomes in most of Africa, just as past experience makes
having low expectations of positive outcomes in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict an equally reasonable position. Nevertheless, I do not see low
expectations as a strong argument against intervention; what matters is
not how grim the overall situation looks, but what difference an
intervention is likely to make.BTW, I picked Algeria for my example precisely because it is a
region
where governments claiming jurisdiction over France have used military
force in the past, and might conceivably do so again. However the
specifics of the example were not based on any real-world events.Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Starchild-
>
> I agree with you somewhat; I do feel it necessary to point out that
> from our previous discussions it feels as if you defend quite a
number
> of more wars in practice than I would. I do find myself ending up on
> a concrete anti-war side perhaps 90% of the time, while with you I'd
> place 60% as my random figure.
>
> On the Algerian question, I think it's important to consider the fact
> that Algeria is a former French colony, when gained independence in a
> bloody and bloodily countered revolution, and that European 'human
> rights' interventions in African countries have this strange habit of
> being based from the countries of the former imperial overlords. I
> don't know enough about the contemporary case you site to make any
> final judgements, but I remain awfully suspicious.
>
> love and strife,
>
> Lady Aster <image.tiff>
>
> {)(*)(}
>
> Freude, schËner GËtterfunken
> Tochter aus Elysium,
> Wir betreten feuertrunken,
> Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
> Deine Zauber binden wieder
> Was die Mode streng geteilt.
> Alle Menschen werden Br¸der
> Wo dein sanfter Fl¸gel weilt.
<image.tiff> email ms_shiris@... <image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> Reply-To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] libertarianism and war
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:56:05 -0700
> >Aster,
> >
> > Excellent reasoning! I feel that you are one of the few
> >libertarians who has really grokked my perspective on military
> >intervention. I especially like your point about how wars of
> >liberation tending to be done badly "doesn't affect the validity of
> >liberatory wars on principle. States after all conduct national
> >self-defense badly too." Exactly! Both wars of "liberation" or
> >"other defense" and wars of "self defense" involve that which is
> >said to be the health of the state, but libertarians are generally
> >willing to countenance one type much more than the other, regardless
> >of the actual facts of the case.
> >
> > Getting away from the obfuscating habit of only using intervention
> >examples involving the United States, what makes it right for the
> >government that claims jurisdiction over France, acting
> >incompetently and out of questionable motives, to militarily
> >intervene against rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, but wrong for the
> >French government, acting incompetently and out of questionable
> >motives, to militarily intervene against a military regime killing
> >people in Algeria, if the people in Clichy-sous-Bois have no more
> >desire for the French military to be operating in the region where
> >they live than do the people in Algeria? What if the members of the
> >military regime ruling the region called "Algeria" are not from that
> >region themselves? Or what if most of them are from a minority clan
> >whose members mostly live in only one part of Algeria, and they
> >seized power over the whole nation by force? Should that affect
> >claims of exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty that they might
> >launch in protest against the actions of the French government's
> >military? What if this military force sent by the government
> >claiming jurisdiction over France is itself mostly made up of ethnic
> >Algerians who see themselves as fighting for their homeland? Does
> >the fact that they are taking orders from Paris make them foreign
> >interventionists?
> >
> > Are rebels morally bound to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn
> >by rulers? Are liberationist forces morally bound to respect the
> >jurisdictional lines drawn by oppressive regimes? Taking your
> >Haitian Revolution example and embellishing on history a bit, let's
> >hypothetically say that rebelling slaves seized several sugar
> >plantations in one valley and formed a local democratic tax-funded
> >"government" in this area which achieved de facto independence
> >significantly before the rest of Haiti was liberated, and say the
> >colonial authorities credibly promised to leave them alone. Would it
> >then have been right by libertarian principles for this government
> >to seek to liberate other plantations in Haiti outside its
> >jurisdiction? How about for it to seek to liberate people on the
> >other side of the pre-existing border dividing the island of
> >Hispaniola, in the Dominican Republic?
> >
> > Or, since this hypothetical government had already established its
> >jurisdiction (the valley it controlled), would it have been
> >un-libertarian "foreign intervention" for it to seek to liberate
> >slaves outside this jurisdiction on other plantations in Haiti? Or
> >would it have been libertarian so long as the slaves on those other
> >plantations shared a common language, culture, geographical
> >identity, ethnic background, etc., but un-libertarian if the other
> >slaves did not have so much in common with the people in the valley?
> >Where does one draw the line?
> >
> > With the world becoming more and more interconnected and
> >cross-pollenated, and national distinctions coming to matter less
> >and less, questions about where to draw the line become more and
> >more relevant. Ultimately, I think such questions reveal the shaky
> >philosophical foundations on which the nationalist libertarian
> >theory of military non-intervention is based.
> >
> >Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually
> >>non-existent therefore there is no State to attack another State.
> >>
> >>Granted; as I've said I'm ultimately an anarchist. But even in
> >>anarchism we would have community defense groups which would face
> >>some of the same issues of foreign policy as modern states, if on a
> >>different scale. And individuals would still be free to volunteer
> >>for wars of liberarian, as in L. Niel Smith's novel The Probability
> >>Broach or the historical Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish
> >>Civil War. Or what about the Haitian Revolution? Is it
> >>unlibertarian if, having liberated oneself, one's aids in the
> >>liberation of the next sugar plantation?
> >>
> >>If I was trapped in a slave state like Nazi Germany or Soviet
> >>Russia, I would want a foreign country to topple my government-
> >>altho' not to engage in indiscriminate terror-bombing or any
> >>possibly avoidable 'collateral damage' (and even so, I've read the
> >>inmates of Auschwitz would have greatly preferred Allied bombing of
> >>extermination camp operations). This is an issue that speaks very
> >>personally to me, having grown up in a physically and
> >>emotionally abusive family and watched a world which looked the
> >>other way regard the abuse as essentially my parents' business, to
> >>the complete disregard of *my* liberty and human rights. Now
> >>granted, most governments engaged in foreign intervention, like
> >>most child protective services, are motivated by anything but a
> >>respect for liberty. I think most wars conducted under the
> >>rhetoric of liberating slaves are motivated in truth by power
> >>politics and imperialism and do little to liberate their victims
> >>(witness the U.S. feeding Afghani and Iraqi women back to the
> >>Islamists). But that still doesn't counter the principle of a war
> >>of liberation. What about assassinationist foreign policies that
> >>narrowly target foreign leaders and/or their military forces?
> >>Again, states are likely to do this badly (modern Israel, for
> >>example), but that doesn't affect the validity of liberatory wars
> >>on principle. States after all conduct national self-defense badly
> >>too.
> >>
> >>I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and it
> >>should answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little
> >>long - but well worth taking the time to read.
> >>
> >>Oh, I know Bastiat. And I don't find it so long... I mean, like, I
> >>did read Hegel and Heidegger in college. My reaction is mixed; a
> >>great deal of it sounds like an early version of Rand's theories of
> >>producers and looters. And this libertarian sociology of war, as
> >>I've said elsewhere, strongly resembles that of modern feminist
> >>theory. These parts I quite like... but I'm not terribly attracted
> >>to either the utilitarianism or to the distinct whiff of Adam
> >>Smith's version of the Protestant Ethic. (I believe Murray Rothbard
> >>rightly called out Smith for reading Protestant values into the
> >>laws of economics).
> >>
> >>But the essay says little in relation to the points I raise, except
> >>perhaps to suggest the unwisdom of military occupation even for a
> >>liberatory cause. The essay deals with war as predation and why it
> >>is ruinuous in spirit and economy; it says nothing against the use
> >>of force purely against coercers. I see no reason why one could
> >>not follow Bastiat to Randian foreign policy conclusion or the
> >>somewhat less bloodthirsty views I hold (unlike Rand I'm not
> >>willing to be blind to imperialism or 'collateral damage and don't
> >>reify the U.S. as history's avatar of righteousness, but I do
> >>countenance wars of liberation against slave states).
> >
>>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE
> Windows Live Toolbar Today!
>
Aster,I strongly suspect you're right that in practice I would tend to
defend military interventions more often than you do. Perhaps this is
because you are more likely to see racism at work in the
interventions? On the other hand, one might also credibly find racism
at work in the *failure* to intervene -- I'm thinking of cases such as
Rwanda, Zaire, and Sudan. But thinking about this a bit more, I
believe that geo-political considerations, low expectations, and class
bias are all more to blame for non-intervention than racism. The
potential for being charged with racism may also tend to tie the hands
of would-be interveners in African conflicts a bit more than might be
the case with conflicts in other parts of the world --- more the
misfortune of the people in those conflict-ridden African countries.I suppose you might see the low expectations as themselves a form of
racism, but if so it is a charge that would seem to apply equally to
supporters of racial preferences who say that members of ethnic
minorities could not compete fairly without such preferences. My view
as you might expect is that the empirical data of past experience
provides a more than ample basis for someone to have low expectations
of positive outcomes in most of Africa, just as past experience makes
having low expectations of positive outcomes in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict an equally reasonable position.
Nevertheless, I do not see low expectations as a strong argument
against intervention; what matters is not how grim the overall
situation looks, but what difference an intervention is likely to make.BTW, I picked Algeria for my example precisely because it is a
region
where governments claiming jurisdiction over France have used military
force in the past, and might conceivably do so again. However the
specifics of the example were not based on any real-world events.Love & liberty,
<<<<<< starchild >>>
<excerpt>Starchild-
I agree with you somewhat; I do feel it necessary to point out that
from our previous discussions it feels as if you defend quite a number
of more wars in practice than I would. I do find myself ending up on
a concrete anti-war side perhaps 90% of the time, while with you I'd
place 60% as my random figure.On the Algerian question, I think it's important to consider the fact
that Algeria is a former French colony, when gained independence in a
bloody and bloodily countered revolution, and that European 'human
rights' interventions in African countries have this strange habit of
being based from the countries of the former imperial overlords. I
don't know enough about the contemporary case you site to make any
final judgements, but I remain awfully suspicious.love and strife,
<italic><smaller>L</smaller>ady
<smaller>A</smaller>ster</italic><fontfamily><param>Times</param><smaller>
<<image.tiff></smaller></fontfamily>
{<bold><fontfamily><param>Arial
Black</param><color><param>FFFF,0000,0000</param>)(<underline>*</underline>)(</color></fontfamily></bold>}
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Freude, schËner
GËtterfunken</color></italic><italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Tochter aus
Elysium,</color></italic>
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Wir betreten
feuertrunken,</color></italic>
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Himmlische, dein
Heiligtum!</color></italic>
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Deine Zauber binden
wieder</color></italic>
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Was die Mode streng
geteilt.</color></italic><italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Alle Menschen werden
Br¸der</color></italic>
<italic><color><param>FFFF,0000,9999</param>Wo dein sanfter Fl¸gel
weilt.</color></italic></excerpt><<image.tiff> email
<underline><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>ms_shiris@...</color></underline>
<<image.tiff>
<excerpt>
</excerpt><<image.tiff>
<excerpt>
From: <italic>Starchild <<sfdreamer@...>
</italic>Reply-To: <italic>lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
</italic>To: <italic>lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
</italic>Subject: <italic>Re: [lpsf-discuss] libertarianism and war
</italic>Date: <italic>Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:56:05 -0700
</italic>>Aster,
>
> Excellent reasoning! I feel that you are one of the few
>libertarians who has really grokked my perspective on military
>intervention. I especially like your point about how wars of
>liberation tending to be done badly "doesn't affect the validity of
>liberatory wars on principle. States after all conduct national
>self-defense badly too." Exactly! Both wars of "liberation" or
>"other defense" and wars of "self defense" involve that which is
>said to be the health of the state, but libertarians are generally
>willing to countenance one type much more than the other, regardless
>of the actual facts of the case.
>
> Getting away from the obfuscating habit of only using intervention
>examples involving the United States, what makes it right for the
>government that claims jurisdiction over France, acting
>incompetently and out of questionable motives, to militarily
>intervene against rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, but wrong for the
>French government, acting incompetently and out of questionable
>motives, to militarily intervene against a military regime killing
>people in Algeria, if the people in Clichy-sous-Bois have no more
>desire for the French military to be operating in the region where
>they live than do the people in Algeria? What if the members of the
>military regime ruling the region called "Algeria" are not from that
>region themselves? Or what if most of them are from a minority clan
>whose members mostly live in only one part of Algeria, and they
>seized power over the whole nation by force? Should that affect
>claims of exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty that they might
>launch in protest against the actions of the French government's
>military? What if this military force sent by the government
>claiming jurisdiction over France is itself mostly made up of ethnic
>Algerians who see themselves as fighting for their homeland? Does
>the fact that they are taking orders from Paris make them foreign
>interventionists?
>
> Are rebels morally bound to respect the jurisdictional lines drawn
>by rulers? Are liberationist forces morally bound to respect the
>jurisdictional lines drawn by oppressive regimes? Taking your
>Haitian Revolution example and embellishing on history a bit, let's
>hypothetically say that rebelling slaves seized several sugar
>plantations in one valley and formed a local democratic tax-funded
>"government" in this area which achieved de facto independence
>significantly before the rest of Haiti was liberated, and say the
>colonial authorities credibly promised to leave them alone. Would it
>then have been right by libertarian principles for this government
>to seek to liberate other plantations in Haiti outside its
>jurisdiction? How about for it to seek to liberate people on the
>other side of the pre-existing border dividing the island of
>Hispaniola, in the Dominican Republic?
>
> Or, since this hypothetical government had already established its
>jurisdiction (the valley it controlled), would it have been
>un-libertarian "foreign intervention" for it to seek to liberate
>slaves outside this jurisdiction on other plantations in Haiti? Or
>would it have been libertarian so long as the slaves on those other
>plantations shared a common language, culture, geographical
>identity, ethnic background, etc., but un-libertarian if the other
>slaves did not have so much in common with the people in the valley?
>Where does one draw the line?
>
> With the world becoming more and more interconnected and
>cross-pollenated, and national distinctions coming to matter less
>and less, questions about where to draw the line become more and
>more relevant. Ultimately, I think such questions reveal the shaky
>philosophical foundations on which the nationalist libertarian
>theory of military non-intervention is based.
>
>Love & liberty,
> <<<<<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
>>Because in a true Libertarian world the State is virtually
>>non-existent therefore there is no State to attack another State.
>>
>>Granted; as I've said I'm ultimately an anarchist. But even in
>>anarchism we would have community defense groups which would face
>>some of the same issues of foreign policy as modern states, if on a
>>different scale. And individuals would still be free to volunteer
>>for wars of liberarian, as in L. Niel Smith's novel The Probability
>>Broach or the historical Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish
>>Civil War. Or what about the Haitian Revolution? Is it
>>unlibertarian if, having liberated oneself, one's aids in the
>>liberation of the next sugar plantation?
>>
>>If I was trapped in a slave state like Nazi Germany or Soviet
>>Russia, I would want a foreign country to topple my government-
>>altho' not to engage in indiscriminate terror-bombing or any
>>possibly avoidable 'collateral damage' (and even so, I've read the
>>inmates of Auschwitz would have greatly preferred Allied bombing of
>>extermination camp operations). This is an issue that speaks very
>>personally to me, having grown up in a physically and
>>emotionally abusive family and watched a world which looked the
>>other way regard the abuse as essentially my parents' business, to
>>the complete disregard of *my* liberty and human rights. Now
>>granted, most governments engaged in foreign intervention, like
>>most child protective services, are motivated by anything but a
>>respect for liberty. I think most wars conducted under the
>>rhetoric of liberating slaves are motivated in truth by power
>>politics and imperialism and do little to liberate their victims
>>(witness the U.S. feeding Afghani and Iraqi women back to the
>>Islamists). But that still doesn't counter the principle of a war
>>of liberation. What about assassinationist foreign policies that
>>narrowly target foreign leaders and/or their military forces?
>>Again, states are likely to do this badly (modern Israel, for
>>example), but that doesn't affect the validity of liberatory wars
>>on principle. States after all conduct national self-defense badly
>>too.
>>
>>I will leave you with this essay by Fredric Bastiat on war and it
>>should answer your questions about why - no war. It is a little
>>long - but well worth taking the time to read.
>>
>>Oh, I know Bastiat. And I don't find it so long... I mean, like, I
>>did read Hegel and Heidegger in college. My reaction is mixed; a
>>great deal of it sounds like an early version of Rand's theories of
>>producers and looters. And this libertarian sociology of war, as
>>I've said elsewhere, strongly resembles that of modern feminist
>>theory. These parts I quite like... but I'm not terribly attracted
>>to either the utilitarianism or to the distinct whiff of Adam
>>Smith's version of the Protestant Ethic. (I believe Murray Rothbard
>>rightly called out Smith for reading Protestant values into the
>>laws of economics).
>>
>>But the essay says little in relation to the points I raise, except
>>perhaps to suggest the unwisdom of military occupation even for a
>>liberatory cause. The essay deals with war as predation and why it
>>is ruinuous in spirit and economy; it says nothing against the use
>>of force purely against coercers. I see no reason why one could
>>not follow Bastiat to Randian foreign policy conclusion or the
>>somewhat less bloodthirsty views I hold (unlike Rand I'm not
>>willing to be blind to imperialism or 'collateral damage and don't
>>reify the U.S. as history's avatar of righteousness, but I do
>>countenance wars of liberation against slave states).
>
</excerpt>
<excerpt>
</excerpt><<image.tiff>
<excerpt>
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>Search from any web
page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar
Today!</color></underline>
Ron,
You paint a very simplistic picture below which is not reflective of reality. Here for example is a fairly detailed recent history of Rwanda published by Human Rights Watch. It shows how unfortunate Belgian colonial practices in the early 20th century exacerbated existing differences between Tutsis and Hutus, formalizing the status of these groups in ways which set the stage for social and political divisions that eventually led to genocide: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/
The Rwandan genocide had little to do with property rights or outside financial support of a repressive regime -- as in Nazi Germany, the regime largely responsible for the atrocities was not a dictatorship with no popular support, but rather an autocratic but to the outside world seemingly effective government largely identified with an ethnic majority which deliberately scapegoated an ethnic minority in order to discredit the opposition and distract people from its own failings.
While it is true that most African governments, including Rwanda's at the time of the genocide, rely on foreign aid, we both oppose foreign government-to-government aid, so that is not the issue here. No doubt ending such aid *would* result in the collapse of *some* repressive regimes, but to assume that *all* repressive regimes would fall, or that mass human rights abuses of the kind demanding foreign intervention would become impossible to perpetrate flies in the face of common sense -- it takes relatively little in the way of resources to starve or murder people by brutal methods.
In any case, the elimination of all foreign aid is not an option that is on the table politically. The political reality is that some level of foreign government-to-government aid is likely to continue to flow to most repressive regimes for the foreseeable future. Even if the U.S. government, IMF, World Bank, and other relatively enlightened major donors were to miraculously realize their aid policies were counter-productive, this would not stop other repressive regimes like the ones in China or Venezuela from opportunistically stepping in to provide funding.
When the world becomes widely aware of a regime's heinous abuses, such as in the cases of Iraq in the 1990s, or Zimbabwe at present, most foreign aid *does* tend to dry up. But this generally does not precipitate immediate regime collapse. Meanwhile, the situation in a country may have reached crisis levels where a humanitarian response is virtually demanded. In the absence of military intervention, even for NGOs to get relief aid directly to suffering civilians often requires the cooperation of the regime, which usually involves it confiscating some of the aid for its own purposes. So even if preventing mass human rights abuses were as simple as merely cutting off foreign aid, not even an entity like the United Nations would necessarily be able to enforce such an embargo, nor in humanitarian relief cases would it necessarily want to cut off privately funded aid even where such aid also benefits the repressive regime.
As for private property rights, a regime willing to commit massive human rights abuses is unlikely to care much about such niceties. I should not be having to explain this, really; it is obvious. And without the carrot of foreign aid OR the stick of military intervention, how do you persuade a recalcitrant regime to change? By the time mass killings are underway of course, it will be too late for foreign aid cessation to make much difference, and to expect suitable private property reforms to occur in such an environment is ridiculous, even if the political motivation were there, which it wouldn't be. So a simple admonition to "give property rights back to the people" is effectively worthless in stopping genocide. Nor are other major needed structural reforms, such as abolishing the U.S. Neutrality Act that forbids individuals from organizing to fight in overseas conflicts, likely to provide much relief on short notice even if they were politically viable.
So when confronted with genocidal actions by an unresponsive regime, governments of more developed and relatively free countries with sufficient military forces to make a difference must generally choose between (a) rapid and relatively effective unilateral military intervention, (b) the delays and inefficiencies associated with multilateral military action, and (c) doing nothing and allowing the human rights violations to proceed unabated with perhaps hundreds of thousands of preventible deaths occurring as a result. That's reality -- let's deal with it, shall we?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
Let's simplify again ( oh no don't do that!!!) 
1. Let the United Nations less the membership of the USA intervene wherever it so chooses whenever it so chooses with whatver means it so chooses to use. America should get out of UN and should cut off all foreign and military aid to any foreign country including contributions to World Bank IMF and NGO's and all others of those ilk
2. If the USA wants the people of the USA to provide foreign aid then set up bank accounts where anyone who so desired could send their money to a foreign country bak account of their choice without any restrictions and get a one for one tax deduction for every dollar sent. It's called voluntary foreign aid.
3. Yes I am quite familiar with the European colonialistic mis-adventures and abuses in Darkest Africa. Britain France Germany Belgium Italy Spain and others all had a hand in some of the worst atrocities and abuses of the "wogs" as can be imagined for a variety of greedy reasons. Yes this included setting tribes against tribes - supporting and sponsoring the slave trade - reaping whatever riches and wealth could be robbed or stolen or plundered and the natives be damned.
A small aside a movie a little ways back with Richard Burton and Richard Harris called the "Wild Geese" is a prime example of the double-dealing duplicity by Europeans in Africa and was a pretty decent action-adventure movie. In the end the real bad guy got what was coming to him - in the fan approved directors version.
4. As far as military action to intervene see Number #1 - this shouild not include America unless some nation-state actually America. As you may have noticed I said nation-state as terrorists and terrorism are per se not nation-states and you can't attack an idea with technology - there's nothing to kill - except the person who holds the idea - the idea still continues - no matter how many terrorists you kill in the name of fighting terrorism.
5. Once again I simplify as the basic Libertarian principle is non-aggression and non-intervention unless and until America is attacked by a foreign nation-state.
6. NO - I am not an isolationist as I do believe in free-trade among anyone who wants to free-trade without any governmental interference as free-trade does not require a government to have free-trade it just requires people dealing with people and screw the government.
Tah Dah! Unh Hunh!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Ron,
You say that "the basic Libertarian principle is non-aggression and non-intervention unless and until America is attacked by a foreign nation-state." I disagree. The basic libertarian principle is Non-Aggression. That principle has nothing to do with America or any other state. It is a general principle.
Now I understand that you derive the principle of Non-Intervention from that general principle of Non-Aggression. I accept that there is an argument to be made from this point of view, although obviously I disagree. But if it is a philosophically valid argument, it doesn't just apply to America, but to all countries. Therefore you might just as easily use another country as an example. And since you are talking with someone who thinks that your views are colored by an unfortunate American nationalism, you certainly don't do your position any favors by using the United States as your example.
Getting back to the real question, none of this addresses the question of what should be done when a genocide occurs. Your implied position is that you would rather see hundreds of thousands of people die than for the U.S. government to intervene militarily in a place like Rwanda, but you don't actually say so. Is this what you mean? I know it sounds horrible to say so, but if that's the position you're defending, you should own up to it.
To me of course it's unacceptable. As flawed as state military interventions are, they are not necessarily the worst thing in the world. The fundamental rights violation has already occurred -- it happens when people pay their taxes. How government uses those funds is just the robber deciding how to spend the money after he has robbed the bank. A non-intervention policy does not return the stolen money or correct the basic rights-violation, nor does intervention necessarily mean a higher taxes later, although I would agree it increases the likelihood.
Defense against an aggressor comes in two basic flavors. Self-defense, and defense of others. Neither of these forms inherently constitute aggression, wouldn't you agree? Self-defense can result in "collateral damage" and deaths of innocent bystanders just as defense of others can. Do you feel that one is more moral than the other?
Do you believe it is somehow more moral for, say, the Pakistani government to spend its stolen taxpayer money on repressing people in Pakistan, than for it to spend its stolen taxpayer money helping independence-seeking rebels in Kashmir (a disputed area generally recognized as part of India) achieve political independence? If so, why?
I also look forward to seeing you address the hypothetical questions about the Haitian Revolution that I raised in my other recent message.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>