Defense of Liberty

Free Republic ^ | September 23, 2001 | Annalex

[Pistias]

Nicely done. One quibble, though, and only because I read it so much lately:

it is between ideologies

An "ideology" is Marx's word for (to be charitable) the "noble rhetoric"--i.e., it's b.s. for the plebs to buy into. It seems to me that you take our "ideology" to be quite true, or at least prudent.

Stay well. If I had half your talent, I'd pick up some slack for you...

[gjenkins]

"In particular, his insistence of economic self-reliance ("let's make our own cotton") was the opposite of what a libertarian would prescribe."

Some would, and some wouldn't. You made an gross generalization.

[gjenkins]

"The proper defense of justice brings about liberty as a natural result."

Justice relies on an objective truth applicable to people. Individual rights are an attempt at that truth and therfore are the basis for justice.

[secretagent]

I would not support our action in Kosovo, but it had an excuse in the apparent assault by the Serbs on the Kosovar Albanians. Defense of the innocent victim is rightful and does not initiate force. Our error of Kosovo was not aggression but misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict in Yugoslavia, which had no innocent sides.

All aggressions, or initiations of force, have an excuse of defense these days. The average American had no idea of the fabricated atrocity reports, or the lies about Ramboulliet (sp?), but didn't care enough about it to query those in power who did. As a result, "we" did bomb innocent civilians who had no part in either side, and increased the power of the Muslim terror network.And this didn't just waste treasure on misguided idealism. It benefited economic interests of certain corporations and institutions, at the expense of a constitutionally limited reach of the federal government.We could understand if some of the victims didn't see our bombing as an innocent error, but the initiation of force from the American Empire, meriting revenge in response. Fortunately we haven't heard of Serbian suicide bombers yet.

[annalex]

I didn't state it very clearly in the article. I think that this war is between civilizations, and that the Western Civilization embeds several ideologies. Libertarian ideology is one of them, but there are others. The common parts of the spectrum of Western ideologies is humanism, rule by consensus, religious tolerance, mercantilism, and I may be missing some such components. So the libertarian ideology is at war, together with other ideologies.

I do not subscribe to the Marxist view on ideology as a method of oppression by deceit employed by the ruling class. I think that an ideology is simply a coherent world view in social matters.

One area where you could help is suggesting articles. Thank you for the kind words.

[annalex]

gross generalization.

Really?

An indian merchant wants to bring cotton from industrialized England, employ Indian seamstresses and ship tailored products back to England at a profit. Here comes Ghandi and says: "No, you can't buy cotton from a factory, you have to spin it right in the village using traditional technology". What kind of libertarian would approve of (1) the national leader overruling a private economic decision; (2) trade protectionism as a viable economic policy?

[annalex]

You are right, with Kosovo we've come the closest to a naked aggression. Yet, while the Kosovar Albanians were not entirely innocent, neither were the Serbs, and that was coming on the heels of the seige of Sarajevo, so the assumption was that the communist Serbia was the primary aggressor. Also, it is not clear what American economic interests were served by helping the Albanians, other than the brothel industry. In fact, the salient criticism of Clinton's involvement was that it didn't serve our national interest.

One reason we don't have Serb suicide bombers is that we are on the same side of this civilizational war.

[gjenkins]

On an individual basis some libertarians would not want to trade with others for a myriad of reasons, of which monetary is just one. I for one, would refuse to buy cotton from a communist (slave labor) country no matter what the price benefit. As a matter of national policy (since that concept undercuts the libertarian principle at the quick), they are also devided between protectionism and open markets.

[annalex]

Ghandi's disapproval of imported cotton had nothing to do with national security, -- the only area where libertarianism allows for government interference in trade. And of course, the question only arises if some individuals want to trade.

The legacy of that economic thinking is evident in India, which still has to overcome mass famine, while its free trading neighbors in Southeast Asia have decent standard of living.

[secretagent]

I don't read all I need to track the interests involved in the Kosovo mess. And interests always fight other interests for control of our foreign expenditures. One obvious interest: the military careerists who always seek to expand their departments and budgets. The snooze media might have a need to demonstrate multicultural tolerance and compassion, and of course gains from the ratings boosts of crises. Not always a natural catastrophe at hand.I think I read that the Ramboulliet accords allowed NATO outrageous privileges within Yugoslavia, and that they have an agreement now that Milosevic basically approved before the bombing. If true, we have have to wonder at the "emergency" that led to the bombing. Perhaps something I've glimpsed about a pipeline, perhaps some interest in bringing Yugoslavia into the "financial community", perhaps in showing muslims that we "cared". As you say - unclear. Wars usually have multiple causes and interests. Hard enough to keep vigilant in chaining our own domestic fedgov, without entangling alliances. In this case, apparently an alliance with an "enemy of our civilization".

[jackbob]

One reason we don't have Serb suicide bombers is that we are on the same side of this civilizational war.

Very well stated. Thought provoking.

[roughrider]

It is justice that is a subset of truth. That which is true is also that which is just. Individual rights flow from justice, as you cannot have individual liberty in an atmosphere of injustice, whether it is the injustice of government (tyranny) or the injustice of the mob (anarchy). As the enjoyment of liberty is contingent upon the state of justice in a society, justice is not subordinate to liberty, or a product of liberty.

[roughrider]

Simply because the system of justice at that time considered Spartacus a slave doesn't mean that the system of justice was actually behaving in an objectively just manner. Justice is not what a particular society claims it to be, but is one thing for all people in all places and at all times. The Romans got this aspect of justice wrong, and hurt themselves in the process. Slavery made Rome the world's most rigidly conservative society in possibly all recorded history. Their inability to innovate made them vulnerable, as all that could feed their economy was the acquisition of loot and slaves. When they could not militarily conquer more lands, they began to unravel. They knew steam and water could do work, but did little to take advantage of that knowledge as there were always slaves to do the work. Soon, they made their own citizens slaves, tying each generation to the same work as their forebears.

The objective nature of what constitutes just law, and its relationship to human liberty, was illustrated very well in the HBO movie "The Jack Bull." John Cusack, the main character, makes this point in his address to the court in the trial scene, and John Goodman, the judge, makes a similar statement to a corrupt official. Real law and justice are frequently very different than the interpretations some individuals impose upon them.

[annalex]

Sorry to butt in, but this is what you and I have been discussing also.

you cannot have individual liberty in an atmosphere of injustice

But you have rights in the atmosphere of injustice; that's why they are unalienable. I made that point in #88.

[randalcousins]

Spirit doesn't matter, fact does. Contrary to your claim, this is not a matter of war, but of crime. You claim the enemy are " organized: they are a country in all but geography".

In other words they are not a country (since geography is the sine qua non of country-ness), and any talk of war is just bullshit.

The FR mainstream who claim that those who suggest western foreign policy created the conditions for the WTC atrocity are anti-American, are like Frenchmen who claimed in 1945 that suggestions the Versailles peace had caused World War Two were "apologising for Hitler". F'ing stupid!!

If you try to impose a favourable government on any country, Afghanistan or Iraq, you will end up in a Vietnam-type situation. Any occupation should be brief, and the country concerned should be left to develop its own government afterwards.

[Aggressive Calvinist]

Get the terrorists who did this by all means, but Holy War isn't a good prescription. It will alienate allies, provoke the hatred we seek to dispel and leave us isolated.

Too late for this kind of thinking, my friend. This might have been the mentality after the USS Cole, or on September 10.

7,000 innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered in an act of total war on 9/11. We are beyond the period when we are worried about "alienating allies". They should be worried about alienating the USA.

We are beyond the time to worry about their hatred towards us. It is time for our enemies to be worried about our hatred.

Leave us isolated? It is our enemies who should only hope so.

[AKbear]

Sorry so late in replying, got kinda busy. :-/

I agree that a citizen database is coming, sadly. But when you say we do not have a right to not have someone keep information about us, I have to disagree when that someone is the government. The 4th Amendment specifically says so. As to merchants and such, then that is between the individual and whoever he is doing business with. However, the merchant can't pass the information to anyone else without the individual's permission, especially the government. Unless the government has a duly sworn warrant.

As to not being able to dictate business conditions, you are correct. However when the business conditions are dictated by the government, then I have a right to call the government on it. When a regulation or law which, when enforced by the government would be unconstitutional, is enforced by a private party at the direction of the government, it's still unconstitutional. If the condition of business is a policy of the private party, that is one thing. When it is a mandate from the government, that is another.

As to your last paragraph, I agree. It will be abused. If not by the current administration, then definitely by some future one.

[annalex]

not a matter of war, but of crime

Why is a conventional, trench against trench warfare a war and not a crime? Because you don't stop the enemy by picking out its soldiers based on their individual behavior. You don't go "I don't know if that crouching fugure shot any of us yet. I remember the one under the bush though; he shot at us before and killed my buddy. I'll try to get the one under the bush because that's just to kill him". A war is when any soldier on the other side is a good target, regardless of his individual involvement. We can apprehend everyone connected to the attack on 9/11 and will get another attack with different perpetrators on the next day. Semantics of "country" aside, for the above reason, what we have is war.

The FR mainstream who claim that those who suggest western foreign policy created the conditions for the WTC atrocity are anti-American, are [wrong]

The FR mainstream is indeed wrong in that regard. It is useful and necessary to look into our past policy when we determine our future policy. It is not terribly useful in deciding about this war though, but certainly not a forbidden topic. I agree that our foreign policy was awful: it pushed Israel toward concessions while coddling Arafat yet it was not able to meet the Palestinians rising expectations; in Bosnia/Kosovo it demonstrated complete disconnect from matters of national security coupled with disregard for civilian casualties; in Iraq it was ineffective, and overall left an impression of a superpower trying to look busy when it really had little to do. However, our policy was also reactive: we reacted to Somalian warlords, to Milosevic, to Osama bin Laden. We did not initiate aggression anywhere (Kosovo did come close). So, our policy created many a misconception, but it didn't earn us this.

you will end up in a Vietnam-type situation

That is of course a concern. The analogy is poor though: Northern Vietnam was backed by the USSR and did not bomb anyone on our soil.

[annalex]

The 4th Amendment specifically says so

Where does the 4th Amendment prohibit a citizen database?

the merchant can't pass the information to anyone else without the individual's permission

No, but he can make that permission a condition of sale. "The law (or another legal circumstance) requires that I pass your identity on to the FBI. If you accept, click here. If you decline, click away".

I am not celebrating any of this.

[AKbear]

Well, I am (not very)loosely considering any information about me to be my "effects," I guess. I just have a real problem allowing the government anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. I truly take that document at it's literal word. I believe that the thought of the government keeping information about it's citizens would be anathema to the founders, based on it's potential for abuse alone.