Doctrinare Libertarians

VodkaPundit serves up some Truth:

Did Wahhabi Islam attack us because we had soldiers in Saudi Arabia? Yes, it did. Are doctrinaire libertarians opposed to us having troops in Saudi? Yes, they are. But the Wahhabis also attacked us because we have pretty girls in short skirts who make passes at men. And because we charge interest on loans. Because we have TV shows with high production values and penis jokes. Because we don’t all have to grow beards down to our collarbones. Do doctrinaire libertarians think these are freedoms worth protecting? Yes, they do — unless the enemy is located somewhere other than Washington, DC.

In that case, they tell us, we ought to just grab our ankles and apologize’to the world for not having been libertarian enough. “Will you please stop attacking us once we’ve legalized prostitution and opened a privately-funded Space Hilton?” While I think those two items are worthy goals, they’ll hardly earn us any currency with bin Laden’s deadly accountants.

This Terror War isn’t (or at least almost entirely isn’t) about stuffing the pockets of Halliburton or Lockheed-Martin. It isn’t mostly useless like the space program. It isn’t a “program” to be horse-traded for another Robert C. Byrd Memorial to the Memorial of the Robert C. Byrd Memorial Highway Memorial.

It’s a fight for our lives and our freedoms. And like any fight, we’ll see setbacks, we’ll do things we might be ashamed of later, and we’ll bloody and bruise ourselves in the process. In the end, we’ll be the worse off for it, too — that’s the nature of war. I resent the fact that this war means more dead Americans. I resent that this war, like any war, will make us poorer.

Today I’m beginning to resent my would-be political allies who, through their ideological blinders, just can’t see the tragic necessity of it all.

I about ready to quit the Libertarian Party over this issue. I don’t take that lightly. The reason is that the LP has failed to deal with this issue. Quite frankly, if the LP was in power and responded the way they say that we should, I would have taken up arms against them and thrown them out of office.

The mandate is clear:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

. . .

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I really don’t give a damn why you are attacking me. When someone punches me, I don’t think about what I may have done to this person. I don’t consider that maybe I stepped on his foot. I don’t think that maybe I scratched his car when I opened my car door. I don’t think that maybe I offended him somehow. I beat the everliving shit out of him and let everyone know that you don’t punch me.

I read the Libertarian oath very carefully before I signed it. I take the “initiation” part very seriously. The way to peace is to make war too terrible to contemplate. When someone thinks about attacking me and mine, they need to know that the consequnces will be quick, overwhelming and completely disproportionate to what they have done. It doesn’t matter if they have a legitimate beef or not. Don’t do it anyway.

(Via Jay Solo)

Check out The Warrior Monk’s Comments too.

3 Comments

  1. Lolo Veck says:

    The person who beats the everliving shit out of someone who was simply trying to stand their ground will soon have no friends, no happiness, and plenty of enemies. They think that by being the meanest SOB in the valley they can finally be unafraid. But that’s what it’s all about. Deep down they are afraid and they hate that. So they trade away the essence of life (love forgiveness patience longsuffering happiness) for a false feeling of safety.

    Trouble is, if they make this idea popular then when two “look at me cross-eyed and I’ll kill you” types meet, one will die. Doesn’t matter which. It just shows that the system doesn’t REALLY work, it only seems to.

    The only way to make war too terrible to contemplate is to contemplate it a lot. Suppose Pakistan and India took that plan to heart. We’d have trouble, not peace. And that same scenario would just keep cropping up over and over and over, as everyone, everywhere makes sure they strike hard at every minor infraction, and of course they have to strike even harder at the retaliation because they were unaware of the thing they did that started it, since it was so minor and maybe only involved a single individual, soon it involves everyone and soon people are hurting and dying on both sides, all this from a plan that was *supposed* to make it safer based on fear of retaliation. It just doesn’t work.

    At least that’s what I think.

  2. Phelps says:

    The problem with that slippery slope argument is that it assumes that there is a low and poorly defined threshold. That isn’t the case. When two types like me meet, no one dies — because no one starts anything. If India and Pakistan followed that philosophy, then there wouldn’t be a conflict. India would stay on its side of the line, and Pakistan would stay on its side of the line, because both of them would know that any attack of any kind would be nuclear suicide.

  3. Lolo Veck says:

    You’re living in a fantasy. Yes…there is some truth to what you say… ie some other neighbor got nuked and so the remaining neighbors tread carefully. But it only goes so far and only lasts short-term. Before long someone will say something that is taken the wrong way and the escalation begins.

    You said the threshold might be a guy punches you. That’s over the threshold. Once you are over the threshold the retaliation is CERTAINLY over the threshold, and 1 2 3 here come the nukes.

    Take a look at how street gang wars go. Each side tries to make their retaliation much worse than the injury they suffered. Over and over and over.

    In reality what is needed is a mixture – a majority of people who are willing to take a punch and absorb evil rather than propel it, and a few hotheads like you in the mix so that we don’t get our good intentions exploited by the truly evil entities out there who would gladly exploit weakness.

    So while I think you are dead wrong, I’m still glad there’s a few people like you out there to keep us a little safer 🙂 And there is no perfect pat answer.