“This has nothing to do with having to decide amongst opinions on how best to “spend our blood and treasure”. I’m sure that you can find one yahoo that thinks that you can stop terrorists by building a mile high gate around the country. That’s not the point.”

On the contrary, this is the very heart of the matter for a prinicipled libertarian.

If Radley is willing to compel dissenters to collaborate in an invasion of Afghanistan then he has no priniciple argument to make against compelling dissenters to collaborate in any public project. He’s affirming the right of the collective to dispose of individuals as the collective sees fit.

In which case taxation and thus publicly funded war (not to mention minarchy) is impossible.

“But since you’re an anarchist there’s really no answer I can give you.”

Why would the answer depend on what I am?

Perry: I agree. Fighting a nuclear war with Pakistan would be more libertarian, instead of unwisely (and unlibertarian-like) attacking an innocent peaceful democracy like Iraq in a pathetic attempt to “scare” other nations (like a bully) no doubt so the neocons-corporations-zionists can have their Empire. Has it worked? Look at Libya, with its mass WMDs. And now Pakistan has gone Islamic. The neoncons have failed.

This has nothing to do with having to decide amongst opinions on how best to “spend our blood and treasure”. I’m sure that you can find one yahoo that thinks that you can stop terrorists by building a mile high gate around the country. That’s not the point.

The point IS that we were attacked by a specific terrorist group. They posed and still pose a DIRECT threat to the security of our nation. Their leader happens to still be running around, while we do have in custody someone who just might have some tertiary connection to that group.

Just imagine what kind of damage we could have done to the actual responsible parties if we had devoted our military and intelligence resources to them instead of Iraq.

And that is the point.

â??we ought to fight the war on terror in a way that best utilizes our resources, that doesn’t needlessly provoke, antagonize, and further inspire people who don’t like us, and that doesn’t unnecessarily piss away the very freedoms said war is being waged to protect.â?

and

â??Doctrinaire libertarians believe America is obligated to defend itself, in the most decisive, efficient, and resolute manner possible. When our national security is at risk, this “doctrinaire libertarian” believes that the United States is morally justified and obligated to defend itself, and to defend itself quickly and forcefully, with or without the consent of any ally or international organization.â?

On the second I wholeheartedly agree, but then how can or why would you be concerned with â??needlessly provoking and antagonizingâ? anyone? Who gives a fuck who gets antagonized? I think itâ??s pretty safe to assume that militant Islamists canâ??t get any more antagonistic given the events of 9/11. This is the problem with â??doctrinaire Libertarianismâ?: it gets caught up in arguing both pros and cons of the same argument. The point regarding the war in Iraq should be stated thusly: It is morally and economically justified, not to mention in the best interests of long-term national security, to effect regime change in Iraq as well as other rogue nations (like Syria, Iran, and North Korea). However, such actions, though they will have inevitable benefits for business interests in areas such as energy and the defense industry, should not be exploited primarily for the benefit of aforesaid business and political interests, especially if it compromises both our economy and the lives of our servicemembers. This is, unfortunately, what the current administration has done.

I appreciate the rant, though, as the debate continues on these issues.

Yes and Hitler said Jews are bloodsuckers and Stalin said the Kulaks were stealing bread. Clearly we should respect the opinions of all three of these totalitarians.

If a rapist is raping your sister and says that he is justified because he is “dating” her, remember that you should respect his opionion and don’t initiate force, because non-inverentionism is libertarianism. To fight him is pre-emptive and makes you an imperialist warmonger (after all, is it really YOUR business?).

love,
1 very concerned Australian.

“And when people disagree about how their blood and treasure should be spent, how should the matter be decided?”

According to the non-initiation of force principle (if you are a minarchist). But since you’re an anarchist there’s really no answer I can give you.

“Let’s not pretend that there weren’t hordes of libertarians who didn’t want to invade Afghanistan, or libertarian writers who wailed that Congress should be granting letters of marque against Al Queda instead of authorizing Bush to act. And also, let’s not pretend that the whole world was cheering the US military on to Kabul.”

And when people disagree about how their blood and treasure should be spent, how should the matter be decided?

“What I see is an argument about effective use of resources for national defense. That’s an area that most libertarians agree is a legitimate use of force, and thus, activity of the government.”

To say “most libertarians agree” does not identify a libertarian principle. Actually I think most libertarians think ousting Sadam is in and of itself a legitimate use of force; I bet Radley does. If such libertarians don’t think it’s a legitimate use of *government* then they ought to be able to identify a principle by which some legitimate uses of force are approriate to government and others not.

“What has he written that causes you to make the leap to “any collective measure”???”

Because he’s talking like a pragmatist. Why would some common goods be appropriate for government action and others not?

I basically agree with you, but it as tacky of Green to go after Radley ignorantly as he did. But judging all libertarians for what a nutty fringe said a few years back is far too harsh.

He made a mistake lumping Radley in with the Harry Brownes and the John T. Kennedys of libertarianism. He copped to it and apologized, here and on his blog, hours before most of the responses here.

Let’s not pretend that there weren’t hordes of libertarians who didn’t want to invade Afghanistan, or libertarian writers who wailed that Congress should be granting letters of marque against Al Queda instead of authorizing Bush to act. And also, let’s not pretend that the whole world was cheering the US military on to Kabul.

Stephen Green has caused quite a stir with his two posts on the schism between “doctrinaire” and “pragmatic” libertarians over the conflict in Iraq and the broader War on Terror. The schism is really nothing new, and at some lev…

Isn’t Balko agreeing he would approve any collective measure that served the common good?

What makes you say that?

What I see is an argument about effective use of resources for national defense. That’s an area that most libertarians agree is a legitimate use of force, and thus, activity of the government.

What has he written that causes you to make the leap to “any collective measure”???

That would teach him a good lesson about the proper use of force.