Libertarianism Lives

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | EDWARD H. CRANE and ROGER PILON

[Boxsford]

Okay, pghliberty, I liked your post. Could be the glass of wine I'm drinking or your more gentle approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll tell you this. My original remarks:As far as I'm concerned Libertarians took several steps back when they showed their anti-American colors in support of Arabs and terrorists.

read: 'as far as I am concerned' my opinion from where I've been and what I've heard. It is a fact to me, pghliberty, because it is what I personally experienced in dialogue on a libertarian web site. (Be aware that I was even there.) We were going along very nicely. I was educating myself on this unique philosophy (and enjoying myself) when the mideast turmoil flared up. Here I was endeavoring to learn about libertarian philosophy when all of a sudden on the threads hatred towards Israel gets spewed. In my mind, they went backwards in their usual very logical thinking out issues and concerns of our times.

They have it in their warped minds that it's okay to bomb anything American because whatever reasons they have for doing so is justified because America deserves it.
You may be right here. It is rather strongly stated. It was apparent that these libertarians actually believed our American foreign policy: *caused 9/11; retaliation of the kind we endured was "deserved"; and, well, I did get the feel that they thought 'anything American' was fair game. It was strong stuff I was hearing.

They don't see or call the so called 'retailiation' a violent act.
This is what was so shocking to me. It was so obviously hypocritical of what I had been learning about their philosophy.

Peace is so precious to them but as long as an act of violence is directed at Americans/America then their philosophy quickly changes. It's hypocrisy!
Perhaps you could explain this~ without the insults or I take my ball home for good~ why libertarians would proclaim 'peace, peace' and yet, and yet, defend those who attacked us!

Listen, I wanting to be convinced. I'm waiting to be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced. But, what I read and heard from libertarians only caused me to stop and pause pghliberty. I'm not the only one to do this. Others have walked away as well.

Now, about this matter of debate. I really do come here for the the fun. The laughs. It's enjoyable to me to debate but it is not enjoyable to be told that my posts are 'slanderous garbage'. When it gets to that level~ I generally walk away. I'm old enough now that I can do that.
Sincerest regards

[pghliberty]

Hey – thanks for dropping a line. I’ll admit the “slanderous garbage” was strongly worded. I’ve been reading far too much material that is painting libertarians as anti-Semitic as of late, and that makes me really ornery! I’ll admit that on the surface it can appear that in the case of Israel that there is some kind of pent up hate, but in truth it is indifference – which can be easily mistaken as hatred, as both hatred and indifference have in common that they DO NOT offer support.

Still, you heard what you heard. Obviously I can ‘t comment specifically on your experience, other than to say that libertarians are philosophically “systematic” and in being so, tend to bluntly call it as they see it according to the “system”. When they delve into issues like Israel, they dig into the history and will point out some things that disagree with said model. Admittedly, there is distaste for governments since they tend to push people around. None are spared. (Of course, there are those who simply hate among all camps too, sadly…)

So on to the topic of Israel, on a macro level libs say “sorry – not our problem”. On a micro level, I know lots of Libs have a problem based on the history of how it came to be mid 20th century – they hold accountable the U.N. (not many conservatives are fans of this, too), the Arabic Kings who made the deals at the expense of their peasant people (contempt again for government), and the non-Martin Buber camp of Zionists who took a more belligerent approach – even using terrorism themselves – in forming the Israeli state. (Buber’s camp of Zionists is very Libertarian friendly, if you will.)

To a lib, this situation was an inevitable problem founded in bad policy. Violence begets violence. Oppression begets violence. It’s a situation where all parties took advantage of the people of the land, while looking out for their own exclusive interests. Most would argue that it is not surprising that there is an uprising by the people, which is supported by allies of all stripes and colors.

AS a lib, I don’t support Arabs / Palestinians, etc. Two wrongs do not make a right. (and I don’t forget that the history of Islam is to attempt to overtake Europe up to the point where Europe presented too big a defensive obstacle…). But I point out in very black and white terms that always one man’s terrorist is always another’s freedom fighters. As many hate the U.S. for supporting Israel as do for propping up Saudi Kings, at the expense of the people. Believe me, if they had f-16s and M-1 Abrams tanks, and a country like the U.S behind them, they’d not be strapping on bombs killing civilians. This is not supporting what they are doing, or saying they are right. Simply stating fact.

As for America deserving what we get – well, I don’t think deserve is the correct word. I think we shouldn’t expect that our interventionist policies will not make enemies -- it does. Period. A libertarian assessment is causal. Our nation was founded under a non-interventionist premise, since meddling tends to create complex problems that are best avoided in the first place. I believe the founders used words to the effect of “many headed hydra” in describing what we would encounter. For reference, hydra is a many-headed serpent or monster in Greek mythology that was slain by Hercules and each head of which when cut off was replaced by two others. (Most know about the many heads, but not that they are replaced by two!)

We have made the worlds’ problems ours. Fundamentally, let it suffice to say that this is such a hyper complex problem, I think the govt. has no business forcing any taxpayer to pony up for one side or the other.