Toward the Laissez-Faire
Republic Inveighing
Against Injustice & Tyranny & Coercive Busybodyism
Sam's Ideological
Web Page on Human Freedom and the Laissez-Faire Republic
This webpage is dedicated
to the principles of individual human rights, private property, free markets
and limited constitutional government. Please allow several seconds for
the web page to be fully displayed.
(If you would like
some music, click on the play button on the console above if your browser
is able to display it.)
The war in Iraq
issue has divided libertarians or has exposed divisions which were already
there. I believe many libertarians and some conservatives sincerely oppose
the war on essentially procedural grounds -- that the word "war" was not
explicitly used in Congress's grant of military authority to the President
in going into Iraq. Even though there is disagreement among constitutionalists
about whether Congress's authorization amounted to a "real" declaration
of war or not, this is at least an argument which tries to refer back to
the Constitution and I understand it even if I do not necessarily agree
with it. I see that as perhaps their strongest legitimate argument against
the war in Iraq. It at least appears to be a libertarian or constitutionalist
argument. (Yet some of the same people who claim this as their basis for
opposing the war in Iraq nevertheless supported the war in Afghanistan,
which had no explicit declaration of the word "war" from Congress either.
Inconsistent constitutionalism, it seems to me.)
But I also believe many
of the "anti-war" libertarians have accepted certain Democrat media talking
points as the basis for their opposition, even though they are not true.
They have absorbed the hate-Bush propaganda which is so ubiquitous in the
media, especially Democrat Party establishment house organs such as NPR,
NBC, ABC, CBS, Time magazine, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and the New
York Times, just to name a few. Those who rely for their news and interpretations
on such sources are apt to be misled, especially on the issue of the war
in Iraq. Many Americans have been led to believe, for example, that Bush
and Cheney "lied us into war" and that Scooter Libby exposed Valerie Plame
as a "covert" CIA agent and that this was in revenge for her husband's
claim that Saddam Hussein never sought "yellow cake" uranium in Africa.
None of these claims of this scenario are true. The statements of Valerie
Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, have been shown to be without credibility.
Libby was not the person who "outed" Valerie Plame (who was not a covert
agent anyway). Yet, because most Americans get only "impressions" of news
and generally get those impressions from watching television every night,
the constant barrage of propaganda has caused many, including even some
libertarians, to buy into this chain of false claims disseminated by anti-Bush
partisans within the federal bureaucracy and their Democrat allies in the
media.
A clash between the U.S.
and Saddam Hussein was virtually inevitable and not avoidable in the long
run. My position has been that the U.S. had little choice: either deal
with Saddam Hussein and his military buildup now (ASAP) or have to fight
him years later when confrontation could not be avoided any longer and
when his forces would have been far stronger and more destructive in terms
of weapons of mass destruction and alliances. That being my view, I'd rather
see it done now and with Bush 43 as President rather than put it off when
Saddam would have been more dangerous and when the U.S. President might
be some doofus Democrat like Kerry or Gore or Hillary Clinton. Whatever
mistakes the Bush Administration has made in the war against the jihadists,
I am easily persuaded in my mind that a Democrat President would have done
far worse. Despite my consistent opposition to President Bush's liberal
policies on other issues, it is clear that things would be far worse if
Kerry or Gore had been elected, especially with regard to foreign policy,
national security, and defense. (Again, as I have said before, it's not
that I think Bush is so good, but that the Democrat alternatives were so
bad. Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not have a clue about how
much damage Bill Clinton did as President to this country's national security
and too many people continue to underestimate the extent of duplicity on
the part of the current Democrat leadership.)
The U.S. (or anyone else
for that matter) had both the legal and moral right to take down Saddam
and his regime. In addition, it was in the geopolitical interests of the
U.S. to do so. The Iran-Iraq War was long over. He had ceased to be an
"ally" long ago. He was harboring anti-American terrorists including Zarqawi
and Abu Nidal. (There is even evidence of terrorist training camps inside
Iraq going back to the 1990s.) Intelligence from all over the world indicated
Saddam's military buildup included weapons of mass destruction and programs
for developing WMDs. He had already used WMDs against Iraqis, killing Kurds
in great numbers. How would he use them in the future? Might some of them
find their way into the hands of terrorists like those who attacked the
U.S. on 09/11/01? Sadam had been properly slapped down by Bush 41 after
his unprovoked aggression against neighboring Kuwait, with whom the U.S.
had a defense agreement. Saddam continued to violate the terms of the ceasefire
after that first Gulf War, Anyone who claims that the U.S. did not have
a right to strike Saddam Hussein and curtail his military buildup in retaliation
for his military actions and threats ignores what was happening or was
just not paying attention.
Contrary to Democrat talking
points and anti-Bush partisan political propaganda, the evidence indicated
Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, did have programs for developing WMDs,
and was seeking to get "yellow cake" uranium (despite Joseph Wilson's claims
to the contrary). Some WMDs and evidence of WMDs were later found by the
U.S. military in Iraq, but there is evidence that most of the WMDs were
transported out of Iraq prior to the arrival of U.S. and allied troops.
There was plenty of time to accomplish this as the Bush Administration
clearly telegraphed its punches.
Whether the U.S. invasion
of Iraq is seen as a rescue of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam
Hussein or as an attempt to replace Saddam with a reliable ally in the
broader war against the jihadists, or both, it was certainly not a case
of "U.S. imperialism" or unprovoked aggression by the allies against a
peaceful government -- as the anti-American Left would have people believe.
In his recent article published
in the Wall Street Journal ("Libertarians and the War: Ron
Paul Doesn't Speak for All of Us" July 17, 2007), Georgetown University
professor and libertarian writer Randy Barnett does not appear to address
the "declaration of war" issue which many anti-war libertarians invoke,
but he does point out quite correctly that "[w]hile all libertarians accept
the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government
in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual
rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate
and effective self-defense after an attack." And, of course, no one ever
claimed that they do, at least no one I know of in the pro-Iraqi liberation
faction among libertarians.
Strict libertarianism says
it is wrong to initiate force against a peaceful person or regime
that has not initiated force against others. It does not say that you cannot
use force in retaliation against someone who has initiated force, which
Saddam Hussein had done on a massive scale. Specific tactics and strategy
of war cannot be deduced from such first principles as self-ownership,
private property, rule of law, etc. There is nothing in libertarian principles
or the theory of the laissez-faire constitutional republic which dictates
such matters. Such specific issues of tactics and strategy are matters
of judgment and prudence by military experts. Other than advocating an
international gold standard, low or no tariffs, and trying to avoid (if
possible) foreign wars as a general policy, there can be a wide latitude
of positions among libertarians when it comes to foreign policy and geopolitical
strategy.
By making himself a single-issue
candidate -- especially on an issue on which libertarians are so divided
– Ron Paul is sadly distracting from other very important issues and from
the bedrock libertarian principles on which we all agree. As Professor
Barnett writes in the closing paragraph of his WSJ editorial, those libertarians
who supported the liberation of Iraq and who support success in leaving
behind a stable ally there ". . . are still rooting for success in Iraq
because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine
the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned
that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians
oppose the Iraq war -- as Ron Paul does -- and even that libertarianism
itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation
inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote
the general welfare of the American people."
I agree. Thank you, Professor
Barnett.
Remember 9/11/2001!
BCNU!
Welcome
to EDDIE'S
RANTS & RAVES
Inveighing
Against Coercive Busybodyism, Socialism, Greenism, and Big Government Tyranny
& Injustice Generally
"Power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" -- Acton
"Giving
money and power to politicians and bureaucrats is like giving whiskey and
car keys to teenage boys" -- P. J. O'Rourke
A
Poem About Your Freedom to Spend (or Save) Your Earnings As You
Choose vs Political Meddling & Schemes by Others to Take and
Spend Your Taxes on Their Foolish Schemes
For a lively dialogue between
two friends on the idea of a free society versus Big Government, feel free
to enjoy the following: A
Poem About Individual Rights
"Left"
and "Right"?
Hey! Do you know your left
from your right? Many Americans don't these days! They are like someone
watching a football game without knowing the rules of the game, which team
is which, or how to keep score! Politics is very confusing to them.
What is the basic definition of "libertarian" in today's political arena?
And, how are libertarians different from conservatives, from liberals,
from democrats, from anarchists, & from pragmatists? This
essay seeks to answer these questions in clear English.
David F. Nolan, cofounder of the American Libertarian Party, sets forth
five essential platform planks which unite all Libertarians despite any
differences they may have on other issues.
Where does the real danger
of violence and terrorism come from in the world today -- from the Right-Wing
or the Left-Wing? Controversial columnist Sam Francis gives his answer.
What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Was the American
Constitutional Republic a democracy? Here, in a very short, easy-to-read
exposition, are the clear answers to those questions .
With references to a variety
of sources from different points of view on the ideological spectrum, this
paper shows how government interventionism and socialism are the politics
of oligopoly and monopoly power, and includes notes and selected bibliography.
U.S.
FOREIGN AID AND UNITED NATIONS VOTING -- THE RECORD: Contrary
to what many people believe, U.S. foreign aid is not buying many real allies
around the world. This Heritage Foundation Backgrounder report (6/11/98)
provides continuing proof that recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote against
the United States more often than they vote with it.
Green
Watch Keeping tabs on the extremist groups, what
they are up to, and the sources of their funding
The "Liberal"/Fascist/Socialist
Mentality
Examining
the Anti-Reality Psychology Behind Those Who Yearn to Run Other Peoples'
Lives and Spend Other Peoples' Earnings & The Irrational Roots of the
Politics of Class Envy, Selective Pity, and Manipulation through Guilt
Tripping
Right
on! by David Horowitz This articulate former leftist
is one of the most astute and intellectually honest reporters on the political
Left in America, past and present. Few can do a better job at explaining
the left-wing cult mindset and its implications. One cannot really understand
the Clinton regime without a sense of its anti-American left-wing roots
of thirty years ago.
Sex,
Lies & Vast Conspiracies by David Horowitz. Telling the truth about the Clinton
Regime and its spinmeisters, this former Marxist reveals what's really
happening there! "David
Horowitz [keeps] crusading against injustice. In his writings, he grabs
for the throat and squeezes. Hard. In his followup to his introspective
memoirRadical
Son, he
turns the flamethrower on Bill Clinton and the courtier intellectuals who
defend his every move." -- World
Magazine
"Pop
a Smoke!" Like Hanoi Jane Fonda, Bill
Clinton's long-standing contempt for the U.S. military and military personnel
is well-known -- and morale among the services is at an all-time low because
he is their Commander in Chief. Here are some candid observations about
Bill Clinton from Marines who served in Vietnam.
Judicial
Watch Larry Klayman fights a valiant battle
for a thorough and no-holds-barred investigation of Bill Clinton!
Has the democratic welfare
state become that great fiction by which nearly everyone seeks to live
at the forced expense of everyone else? Government cannot give anything
to anybody unless it takes it away from somebody else, and when it does
this it uses force and coercion in violation of the rights of those from
whom it takes. The political state -- interventionist government -- cannot
bestow any benefit to society as a whole -- it can only take from some
and give to others, minus the overhead absorbed by the administering bureaucracy.
The
Drudge Report -- Don't make the mistake of depending
on only one source for news and commentary (especially if the one source
is TV)! Investigate for yourself and get news weeks or even months BEFORE
the "Liberal" Media Establishment decides to finally report on it. The
Internet offers a greater diversity of news and opinion than you will ever
get watching the Boob Tube. The Drudge Report provides an important alternative
to the Establishment slant.
Introduction
more or less
weekly
Are
you a Commie Pinko? Do you agree with Karl Marx? Check out the ten planks
advocated by Marx in The Communist Manifesto.
The
Hitchhiker
-- political humor!
