Explaining why LP News takes an anti-war stance
by Bill Winter, Libertarian Party News Editor, May 2003

As I write this column in early April, the shooting war in Iraq has been going on for three weeks. The debate among Libertarians about whether the party should support or oppose that war has been going on much longer.

As editor of LP News -- and author of the "10 reasons why the U.S. should not attack Iraq" news analysis in the March issue -- I've been getting some heat about how the newspaper is responding to the war. So, I'd like to take a moment to answer some common questions.

1) There is disagreement among Libertarians about whether the LP should support the war. Why does LP News favor the anti-war viewpoint?

As editor, it's my responsibility to ensure that LP News reflects the LP Platform's view. On military issues, the LP Platform is resolutely non-interventionist. In fact, there are more than a dozen specific policy prescriptions in our Platform to curb American military activities in foreign nations.

And if there's any confusion, the Platform states: "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling."

In the absence of an attack on the U.S. -- or the immediate, grave, and unequivocal danger of an attack -- the Libertarian Party's position must be to oppose the invasion of another nation.

I believe a vast majority of Libertarians supported military action in Afghanistan because it was against a regime that sheltered and supported the al Qaeda terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. I believe a vast majority of Libertarians oppose military action in Iraq because Iraq poses no credible threat to the U.S., and because there is no credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

That said, I think there is always room for discussion. That's why LP News has printed letters in support of the war, and ran a point/counterpoint about the war in the February Forum.

2) In the January Pulse column, 45% of the respondents said they support military action against Iraq. Isn't this proof that the LP is really split down the middle on the issue?

No. Every month, the Pulse points out the unscientific nature of the column, but I'm not sure readers grasp how unscientific it is. In a typical Pulse column, only 20 to 40 LP News readers contribute. That's a response rate of about 0.1% -- or one out of every 1,000 readers. So, that 45% represents the opinion of perhaps 10 to 20 readers.

The Pulse is entertainment. It's an opportunity to see what a small number of vocal Libertarians think. It does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of most LP members. In fact, most of the time I suspect it doesn't, since one side of the issue -- usually the one that sees itself in the minority -- tends to be more motivated to write in.

3) Why do you give so much coverage to Libertarians who participate in anti-war marches with leftists and socialists?

Libertarians in more than a dozen states have participated in organized anti-war activities. As editor, I think it is important to report on the political activities of LP members, even if we don't like the company they keep. In news articles, I always try to explain the reasons why Libertarians oppose the war, so their viewpoints aren't confused with the foolish arguments of the left.

As a personal aside, I, too, am disturbed that Libertarians are linked with leftists who hate America, and who would cheerfully repeal the freedoms we work so hard to defend.

However, I understand that some Libertarians think it is crucial to publicly protest the war. In doing so, they are willing to make a one-time common cause with people who don't share our freedom-loving agenda.

4) Isn't LP News just echoing the viewpoints of leftists when it opposes the war?

No. LP News has made Libertarian arguments against the war, using points made by the (non-leftist) Cato Institute and (non-leftist) Congressman Ron Paul. Opposing a war with Iraq on the grounds that the conflict is not necessary for the nation's self-defense is a Libertarian position.

Based on the number of times I've been asked this question, I get the sense that some Libertarians support the war simply because they can't stand being on the anti-war side with the likes of Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks, France, and those nitwits who organize "vomit-ins" and carry signs that say "No Blood for Oil."

I sympathize. However, the fact that foolish people (and France, but I repeat myself) also oppose the war (for different reasons than we do) is irrelevant to our principled Libertarian stance.

By the time you read this, the war could already be over. U.S. troops might have toppled Hussein and liberated the Iraqi people from tyranny. That would be good. Or we might still be engaged in a protracted, bloody guerrilla war. That would be bad. But neither possible outcome changes the fact that this war was not necessary for the the self-defense of the United States.

War good, peace bad.

Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of objectivist, self-serving, La Rouche-supporting, anti-semitic morons who don't support anything but themselves, and maybe white privilege (the same thing?).

Enough said.

I like Libertarians. They want to abolish the EPA! We'd be free to pollute the Earth even more if we got them into office!

A. Not all Libertarians hold identical views. It is not a homogenous movement.

B. The silly mischaracterizations by Leftists opposed to individual Liberty are equally stupid, and invalid, with the anti-constitution fascist leaning Bush Supporting Right.

A pox on both your houses.

Abolish the EPA! Abolish unemployment insurance! Abolish Pell Grants! Only the rich deserve higher education!

"Not all Libertarians hold identical views. It is not a homogenous movement."

"...the anti-constitution fascist leaning Bush Supporting Right."

Apparently, the Right is a homogenouos movement.

Correct, Diogenes?

...those are not legitimate government functions. They can all be handled by private Suits at Law.

You are engaging in cheap sloganeering which betrays your total lack of intellect. You can't make your point with facts or reason so just throw bombs eh?

Abolish Medicare! Abolish Medicaid! Only the rich deserve healthcare! Hell, abolish the Constitution!

and weak. I need the Government to take care of me and feed me at somebody else's expense. It's so unfair that I have to work for what I want. I demand that the Government take it away from someone who does work and give it to me. It's not theft if the Government does it.

I posted the above comment. Aren't I clever?

Hi, my name is Diogenes and my presence here on earth is supported by the fabric of civilization. I take from it, drink from it, learn from it, and prosper from it. That's my right as an individual, to take and take and take.

But don't go thinking you can make me give anything back to maintain society because that would infringe on my personal rights. Only those who want to live oppressed lives want to give to society, to maintain it. Live and let die I say.

Your childish little tirade proves nothing. Squalling like a little child throwing a temper tantrum.

The reality is that for anyone to have anything someone must get off their butt and work. The real world can be, and frequently is, a tough place. I know you would like some nice utopia where nobody has to work and nobody suffers from want. Here's the reality you always have to do before you can have.

Helping one another does not mean you have to turn government into organized thievery taking from people who do to give to those who don't.

A free society does not mean a heartless society. The ends you wish to achieve can be accomplished by voluntary cooperation. Before the intervention of big government with all it's inefficiencies and intrusiveness this country had a very good Social Service Network provided by community groups and Churches. And they were considerably more flexible since they did not have 10,000 page manuals specifying exactly and only what they can do.

People will donate to and support worthy efforts to help others. In fact they enjoy doing so. There are still many such groups. Thousands in fact. And they are voluntary and donations are voluntary - yet they do more good with less money than government "programs". Sadly there are just not as many as there once was because government took over and the perceived need for them vanished. As taxes rose to pay for ever more government waste the donations that supported them dried up. Here's a fact - when Reagan lowered tax rates in the early 80's charitable donations went up. When Bush raised taxes they went down. People are not going to damage their own families survival in tough times. When taxes went up government was now taking by force the money these people were donating vouluntarily.

Here is an uncomfortable fact: The efficiency of Government Social Service Programs has been studied over and over and their performance is dismal at best. 70 to 80 cents out of every dollar appropriated to so-called Social Service programs is consumed in overhead and never reaches the people it is supposed to help. Contrast the foregoing with the average private Charity where the numbers are reversed - 80 to 90 cents of every dollar donated goes to helping people. Which is more efficient and makes more sense? Taxes taken under threat of force to support bureaucrats or voluntary donations to private organizations that are more efficient and can help more people with the same amount of money.

Socialism does not work all it guarantees is equality of misery. It takes away the incentive to strive. The most polluted countries on earth were those behind the old Iron Curtain in the "People's Paradise". In the industrial area of Sebastopol the average life expectancy had declined to the mid 40's because of the filthy environment.

Socialism is one of the most tyrannical forms of government as in order to make it work at all requires force - you know the Secret Police - KGB - NKVD - Gestapo types.

You can continue building castles in the sky but no one will live in your imagination. Wishing for people to change their behavior to suit your whims is not freedom it is tyranny pure and simple.

I thought you were a self-serving libero-socialist what with all that ranting about legalization of drugs. And how you believe that we could have government funded rehab clinics for all the dope heads and whatnot. Now you're saying that sort of thing wouldn't work.

I don't get it. I can't figure out which side of the fence you're on. Do you even know?

And don't give me this crap about "being a humanitarian". That's such a copout. Liberals always try to pull that crap about love and peace and harmony and drip drip drip. 99% of all people are humanitarians when their immediate needs of food, shelter, air, and sleep are met for themselves and their families. At that point, we all want what's best for our neighbors. But take one of those away from a humanitarian and he could give two squirts about his fellow man.

We're all humanitarians. Going around ranting about it doesn't solve any problems or offer any solutions. So where do you stand? Strong centralized (socialist) government, or small hands-off government?

Is thiw an indymedia site? About half of the articles and comments are written by fascistoids.

So open publishing should be limited to progressive thinkers only?

Sounds fascist to me.

Boy, you and daveman sure mis-use the term fascism.
Don't you mean authoritarian?

I honestly don't know. Please enlighten me.

Funny how liberals call everyone who disagrees with them "fascist", and then I get accused of misusing the word.

HAR!

Oh so you're just pretending to be ignorant to help us to feel better in our confusion. Oh thank you. So much.

Just for you sheepdog.



One entry found for authoritarian.


Entry Word: authoritarian
Function: adjective
Text: 1

Synonyms DICTATORIAL, authoritative, dictative, doctrinaire, dogmatic, magisterial

Related Word heavy-handed, high-handed, oppressive, strict, stringent

Antonyms libertarian; anarchistic


Synonyms TOTALITARIAN 1, total, totalistic

Related Word fascistic, nazi; patriarchal
Antonyms democratic



notice the related word "fascistic". I think that's the word I meant. Not fascist. Fascistic.

Fascism [Webster Encylopededic Dictionary]
"A totalitarian form of government in Italy administered
by the fascisti ( a political organization ) which
advocated the building of a highly nationalistic state,
recognizing private ownership except when the state
determines otherwise-
p319 1980 edition.

To Eric: Well, you and your fellow travelers have consistently tried to misrepresent my positions. I suspect simply to annoy me

My viewpoint on government can be summed up as:

"The government which governs best governs least."

Or to borrow from Thoreau

"The government which governs best governs not at all."

I am and always have been a Jeffersonian Liberal or as we are referred to nowadays a Libertarian.

This means I agree with the "Left" on some issues and the "Right" on others.

I was opposed to the Bush Junta's war of conquest. That does not imply in any way shape or form that I desire to live in some Socialist Slave State.


As for the broader debate:

Benito Mussolini (often accorded the title of the father of modern fascism) defined Fascism as the Merger between State and Corporations. He said another name for it could be Corpratism. Also propounded by Mussolini was the "Positive" aspects of War and Conquest and the enobling characteristics of war. Like it's mirror image on the Left Marxism/ Socialism it is a form of Totalitarianism as the Citizen is effectively viewed as "State Property".

For the record I don't see a dime's difference between the two. Either way you are still a slave.

"I swear before the Altar of Almighty God eternal enmity towards all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

You're definition leaves out a LOT.

You can use the 2003 version of M-W online. Try here, to see what you missed.

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Authoritarian and Fascist are, in fact, synonyms. But you sugar coat it and call yourself whatever you like. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And so is a fascist.

I especially like how liberal don't accuse other liberals of mis-using that word, even though it gets slung around like hashbrowns at Waffle House on IMC. It's like they think they have exclusive rights on the word. Like they don't want it to become a tainted insult, which is exactly what will happen if rightwingers point out the inherrent hypocrisy of the left and use their invective against them. You people are pathetic jokes.

Diogenes, sounds like your more of an "anarchist" to me. Although, truth be told, I probably am as well. It would be nice if we lived in la-la-land, where Government is unnecessary. Unfortunately, we don't.

I agree with a lot of the libertarian philosophy. Not a bad dogma really. Except for the self-destructive things like wanting to legalize drugs. There's a limit to freedom. That limit has demarcation where it infringes upon the rights of others. As we've seen many times, you give some people an inch and they take a mile. That's when government has to step in and smack them around a bit.

I just lynched a nigger. Aren't you happy?

...I think a lot of the arguments supporting a "strong" government are frequently based on fear mongering and are used for expanding state power. I believe it is done knowingly and cynically.

Businesses like Federal Regulators because they can use them as a shield against Consumer backlash for shoddy and/or defective products e.g., "it was manufactured to 'government standards'"

To take one of the more frequently used dodges "The War on Civil Liberties" oops scuse me "The War on Drugs": Prior to the enactment of most of the current anti-drug laws we had LESS of a problem with drugs. At one time you could by Opiated Elixirs from the friggin Sears Catalog. The "evils of Drug Abuse" is a boogie man and stalking horse for another agenda. I have written about it a lot on this Site so for the moment I'll forgo the full argument but if you are interested the CATO Institute has some good references. Just punch in "War on Drugs" into their Search Engine. I posted the link in an earlier debate but don't have time at the moment to go look it up and repost it for you. However, the Site has several good detailed analyses as to why the whole War on Drugs is more a War on Civil Liberties and is pointless.

Baaaaaaaaahhhh!

Obviously your long term memory has been affected by decades of illicit drug use. You and I have had this conversation before. Let me summarize it:

You think drugs should be legal, and you skew and slant and misrepresent and provide all sorts of "legalize drugs" propaganda to support that position. And you want my tax dollars to pay for drug rehabs. But then you say that government sanction rehab programs are mostly inefficient and don't work.

I on the other hand like drugs being illegal. I don't want them around me, my family or children, my friends or neighbors, nor in my workplace. I don't want any loudmouthed liberal telling me about how it's his (or her) constitutional right to smoke his (or her) dube at smokebreak time. And there are a buttload of other reasons why I'm against it, but the discussion is tired.

I saw on the news this week how some idiotic liberal labor union in the Netherlands won the right for it's workers to be able to drink beer during normal working hours. That's exactly the sort of dementia that's eating America (and the world) up. It's already devoured the Europeans; they're a bunch of loud-mouthed screeching liberal hyenas that will fall victim to the next group of Nazis that decide to invade Austria and go on a rampage.

And if Americans don't get off their lazy asses and confront these 5th column leftists, we're going to be throwing up white flags too.

Only alcohol, caffeine and tobacco should be legal. After all, they're more harmful than marijuana. It makes perfect sense to me!

Right your congressmen and let's get those drugs banned too!

Write your congressmen and let's get those drugs banned too!

how many people have had to go to rehab for caffeine and tobacco use, please raise your hands....

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

It sure is clever that you chose not to mention ALCOHOL. NOT.

What do you think Nicoderm is for? That's right, little Eric, TOBACCO WITHDRAWAL.

Nicoderm doesn't work. You can take a placebo and get the same results. Idiot.

And I did mention alcohol. I said we should make it illegal, just the same as caffeine and tobacco.

Jeeeesh! Can't even agree with you without taking grief for it.

Wow, I thought those comments were from an impersonator. I didn't think that you were THAT authoritarian. So you DO want to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. You sound pretty power-hungry. You'd make a great Hitler. Idiot.

in having the exact same conversation with me in two separate threads, when I've been very specific on my positon, and made my point clear.

I am against ALL drug use. Period. What's so hard to understand about that? And what exactly is so terrible about it?

Way to go, Eric. Whenever we conservatives have nothing intelligent to say, we can always resort to hurling childish insults. It has served us well. Great job!

That same garbage you post, day in and day out, is really, really tired.

Please. PLEASE! We're begging you...get some new insults.

For the love of GOD!!!

If anyone needs any childish insults, please ask Eric.

in giving Dirty Sanchezes to underpaid IMC boardops.

In addition to God, what other fairy tales do you believe in? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy?

and 5th column leftists.

Come on, little Eric, answer the questions MATURELY.

garbage out. I'm merely a subroutine.

You're merely an idiot.

maybe I just like keeping IMC boardops from getting board.

Watch out! There's an IMC boardop under your bed!

that you are an utter bore. And a boor. You're a bore-boor.

You're not even remotely funny. You're sense of humor is vapid. And you have no imagination.

In short, you are a boring, boring, boring person. Why do you spend so much time on here chatting with me? I don't want to talk to you. You bore me. Go find somewhere else to play. Go outside. Go to the beach. Go where other naughty school children go when they ditch. Just go away.

Unfortunately for me, my nature is to respond to you out of generosity. But no more. I'm done with you. I have cast ye Satan into the pit. I no longer care to chat with you. Get the flock outta here, oh boring one. Bring me a shrubbery.

I really don't think that anyone here is trying to be funny. That's only in your head, little Eric.

"I don't want to talk to you."

Then why ARE you, little Eric? You're not too bright, ARE you, little Eric?

I really don't think anyone here is trying to be funny, little Eric. That's only in your head.

"I don't want to talk to you."

Then why ARE you, little Eric? You aren't very smart, ARE you, little Eric?

(to the tune of "You are so beautiful to me" by Neil Diamond)

Yew are sooooooo boring, ta me.

Yew are soooooo boring, ta meeeee can't yew seeeeeeeeee?

Yew're everything I hate for.
Yew're everything I don't neeeeeed.

Yeeeew are so boring. (high pitch) Tah meeeeeee!

that song is by Joe Cocker

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/youareso.htm

I am a total nutcase. I need prescription meds asap.

Meds will make me all better. Nothing will make your personality any less boring though.

Yew are soooooo boring, tah meeeee!

Do you enjoy having conversations with yourself?

no he doesn't.

Maybe there are just a lot of people named Eric posting to this forum, and they're all talking to each other.

I agree with Eric. It could just be a big group of people that all have chosen the common name Eric. After all, it's the typical name for a white American suburbanite.

I'm sure it's a white supremacy group.

Wow. You sound more deranged than me. You'd like my website, especially if you're a cyberterrorist who hates Muslims.

www.kobehq.com

are proud to be citizens of this beautiful country of ours? The stripes and the stars? The women and men who have broke their necks for the freedom of speech the United States government is sworn to uphold...or so we're told. I never would have dreamed in a million years I'd see, so many fucking people that feel like. That share the same views and the same exact beliefs. It's like a fucking army marching in back of me. So many lives I've touched. So much anger aimed, at no particular direction. Just sprayed and sprayed. Untill, straight through your radio waves, it played. Til it stayed stuck in your head, for days and day. Who woulda though, just bleachin' my hair, with some peroxide and reachin' for a t-shirt to wear, that I would catapult to the forefront of rap like this? How could I predict my words would have an impact like this?

America!
I could be one of your kids.
America!
Little Eric looks just like this.
America!
Erica loves my shit.
I go to TRL and look
how many hugs I get!

Eric is a concept. Eric is a philosophy. Eric is a way of life.

I would drink Eminem's bathwater. He's my idol.

Dude, the other day I went to Block Busters and rented Apocalypse Now! on DVD. Yeah dude, it was so cool. Did you know that movie was based on that book "The Heart of Darkness". I was smokin' a dube and just chillin' when it got to that part where the dude goes, "Hey dude, did you know that 'IF' is the middle word in 'LIFE'?" And I was like wow man! That shit just blew my mind dude. Then I took another hit of my bud man, it's some good Columbian shit, not that imitation crap, and thought "Dude! ERIC is the middle word in AMERICA!!!" Now that shit really blew my mind! It really is a conspiracy dude!! Pass the blunt homey.

Somebody replaced your weed with crack.

Crack gets me all hyper. Weed just makes me chill. What difference does it make anyway? It's my body.

Naaaaah, it was aspartame.

arfarf..he..arfafra..really..arrrffff..luvs...drugs..arfffffff..bark