Posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex
And yet can bomb foreign countries with impunity just like the last "opposition President" who had both a majority Senate and House "against" him. Fancy that, he's a dictator.
I agree on the narrow point that no modern politician seems to care one bit for the Constitution as written. Still, that's no dictatorship. Britain, for example, doesn't have a written constitution.
More absurdities. Their rights to self defense were violated by their own government firstly. And more importantly than their right to carry firearms (which if protected might have resulted in a much different scenario than what occurred on 9./11) their national government failed them miserably. The one job it was supposed to do well (National Defense) if failed at.
Furthermore this was not 90% of the population who were affected. It was all of us. Every single one of us has been shown the folly of foreign interventionist policy at the expense of the homeland.
Of course not. The terrorists chose to attack civilians and their attack suceeded. There is no telling what line of attack they would have chosen if the environment of air travel were different. They were the party that initiated violence. Now, it is the right of every American -- because every American is objectively threatened -- to demand retaliation from our government. Some of us do, and some don't. But our government either retaliates or it doesn't -- it can't do 90%-10% split on retaliation. Thus foreign policy cannot go by percentages of consent, which is my original point. Hope that clarifies.
This whole scenario has nothing to do with self-defense. First off, the 90% did not have their rights to self-defense violated by some foreigners. They were violated by the government, which forbids people from defending themselves and arrogates responsibility for defense to itself.
Can you imagine a private company taking this approach? No security firm would ever forbid you from stopping a burglar at your door. No supermarket would forbid you from growing your own food. No car company would forbid you from walking. Nor would anyone buy products from companies that adopted such tyrannical policies.
Yet the government forbids you from acting in self-defense. That alone shows that it works by force, not by the wishes of its citizens (as you claim). As a consequence of this government violation of people's rights, some foreign criminals attacked and the people could not defend themselves. The government, incompetent as always, failed to defend them either.
Since the violation of rights comes from the government, any consequent actions it may take are also illegitimate. Unsurprisingly, they are further violations of rights, in this case the rights of the foreigners it attacks in order to justify its usurpation of your rights.
Bombing a foreign country is not about not self-defense. It's not even about bringing the perpetrators to justice. No, bombing is, as you say, about retaliation. About revenge. How exactly does killing more innocents, in this case Afghani peasants, serve the cause of justice?
Of course, none of this addresses the original point I made anymore than your response does. The government violated my right to self-defense. Why am I forced to support the wars it undertakes to justify that usurpation of my rights?
The original point of this pair of articles was that attacking governments that (supposedly) support terrorism is a just war. Since demidog and Carry_Okie have quite ably put paid to this notion, you now argue that it is just if 90% of the people think it is. Obviously false. Perhaps Ive got you wrong and you are instead simply arguing that the government should do whatever the majority wants it to do? Maybe it should. But then your argument is neither libertarian nor objectivist. For that matter, its not even constitutional.
what I meant by "self-defense" is national defense. On the individual rights level, retaliatory violence is not initiated violence, hence is justified against anybody. So, on the national level, retaliatory war against any entity that attacked American citizens is justified.
Since Demidog brought up the issue of consent to foreign policy, I pointed out to him that we as a nation can have only one foreign policy. So no matter what our foreign policy is, there will be some who are unhappy with it. My position in that is that in matters of foreign policy the government should do whatever it thinks our national interest is, and the voters can provide a correction every election cycle. That is not the same as saying that it should do whatever the majority wants.
False. Airlines are not allowed to have guns on flight. The government has forcibly prevented airlines, their employees and their passengers from defending themselves through the use of guns or whatever other means they might find appropriate. It therefore has usurped the right to self-defense in the specific case of 9-11 and therefore whatever actions it may take in consequence are illegitimate.
what I meant by "self-defense" is national defense.
I disagree. You used the term self-defense because it is the proper one. National defense is a derivation of self-defense, a form of collective self-defense. The concept cannot be justified at least not from libertarian premises in any other fashion. A government which has usurped the right to self-defense and replaced it with a concept of national defense is not based on the principles of natural rights. Its actions cannot be based on natural law.
On the individual rights level, retaliatory violence is not initiated violence, hence is justified against anybody. So, on the national level, retaliatory war against any entity that attacked American citizens is justified.
What is this concept of retaliatory war? How does it relate to defense of any kind, especially in the context of 9-11 where it is not the least clear who was responsible for the action? Who are you retaliating against? Afghani peasants?
in matters of foreign policy the government should do whatever it thinks our national interest is, and the voters can provide a correction every election cycle. That is not the same as saying that it should do whatever the majority wants.
This is gobbledygook. Im not sure whether you are arguing in favor of a form electoral dictatorship or majority rule. To this I repeat what I said in #146. But then your argument is neither libertarian nor objectivist. For that matter, its not even constitutional.
Well, lessee. If were not retaliating for the attacks of 9/11, then just what are we retaliating for? Anthrax attacks? But it hasnt even been established that the perpetrators are Moslem (although I agree that they likely are), let alone that they are a group of Afghani peasants. Maybe were retaliating because of some hypothetical crime that Afghani peasants may commit at some point in the future? If so, why cant I retaliate against you because you may conceivably attack me for this post?
Our government may be wrong in retaliating the way it does, but, tough, we have one government which formulates one retalatory policy, which will stand at least till the elections.
Personally, I dont believe that retaliatory violence is libertarian at all. The belief that it is justified is the root cause of all modern wars. But wrong retaliation isnt retaliation at all. It is simply lashing out in anger at the nearest convenient target. My ex-wife used to put me through the grinder because she had a bad day at work. She would then say that she needed to unwind. Attacking Afghani peasant is exactly the same thing. Random violence for self-satisfaction. I doubt that even Rand would support that.
Our government has, as it says, some concrete knowledge that links the perpetrators to the Al Qaeda network. Since the government of Afghanistan won't end Al Qaeda, our government is at war with Afghanistan. It is conducting the war in a way that avoids civilian casualties, but the paramount goal is to win the war. Now, our government may be wrong on all accounts, but it has the prerogative of using its judgement as it generally has the prerogative of going about its legitimate function.
It is a valid question whether preemptive violence on foreign soil is legitimate. My view is that it is legitimate under the circumstances because given the nature of terrorism there is no other sure way to prevent future attacks. One is entitled to his defense being effective no matter the time or place of the defensive act.
If you object to national defense being a legitimate government function, then it is not libertarian, but anarchist position.
Of course we have to take this a little further retaliatory war against non-government non-perpetrators as preventive violence by a state that may be completely wrong in its actions. And all this is justified because the government is the government until its not.
This is getting absurd. Admit it. You just want to strike out at anyone. Right? Or perhaps, as you explained to tex-oma, you think that imperialism is the proper solution. Defend this position if you will. Just dont try to call it libertarian.
If I may fire that gun myself, I can delegate that right to the government. Thus government may engage in preventive violence.
All that is news to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.