Left and Right Libertarian

[Earthborn]

Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, .

Yes, I noticed that! Even pro-guns-on-board-airplanes.

Only government officials shouldn't have guns, because it would make them ominous Men With Guns (wuhuhahah, scary! ).

WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'.

I think it was justified to use force, but I can't see how the force used was all justified. Dresden, Hiroshima? Aren't libertarians against using force against people who haven't used force against you themselves.

One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers.

I think that war had a few elements that I consider closer to how I think a just war must be fought. Trying to help the population with food packets while limiting bombardments to military targets was one of them. I'm not such a fan of the warfare-by-proxy method of supporting one group of warlords and let them do the dirty work though, as it caused the horrible 'convoy of death' incident. I'm even more disappointed that it wasn't investigated, or that we hear nothing about it anymore.

Originally posted by Beerina
And thus be unprepared if anything big actually happened.

What kind of big thing could happen that the US couldn't defend itself against with half of all its troops (but all of them in the US or on actual battlefields) and limiting its nuclear arsenal to only be able to sterilize the planet 2 times over?

 

[Earthborn]

BTW, Larspeart. The quote in your sig is a misquote. It should read: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Also it may not have been from Benjamin Franklin himself. Read all about it!

Either way, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the vast majority of people do not deserve liberty or safety. Something that is obviousy not true.

 

[Segnosaur]

I find it strange for a lib to endorse teh war in iraq. WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'.

Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified. But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

 

[shanek]

Correct. By definition, libs are against initial force. We are non-interventionists. However, we are also FAR from pacifists. We'll gladly kick butt if someone infringes on our right to exist or our property rights. Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, .

In fact, the best way to prevent war is with an armed population.

WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'. One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers. To attack those people is, in my mind, justified.

I agree that we had to go into Afghanistan, but I disagree with the way it was done.

 

[drkitten]

Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified. But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

I think you're trying to create a straw-man version of "non-interventionism." The mere fact that German declared war on the United States means in practical terms that the United States was involved in a war in Europe. The United States certainly might have tried to negotiate a separate peace treaty (at the point where Germany and the United States were formally at war, a "non-aggression treaty" would not have been appropriate, and diplomats on both sides would have rejected it). There's certainly historical precedents for such "separate peace," for example Russia's treaty with German in WWI.

But there's no reason to believe that Roosevelt, who was himself avowedly non-interventionist, would have been interested in negotiating such a peace, nor that there would have been interest from his German equivalents. For Germany to undertake such a separate peace with the United States would have involved violating its treaty obligations to Japan --- leaving a "non-interventionist" United States in the uncomfortable obligation of having no one to negotiate with and being in the middle of a declared war.

 

[shanek]

Either way, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the vast majority of people do not deserve liberty or safety. Something that is obviousy not true.

I would disagree with this. If someone infringes the liberty of others, he has forfeited some of his. If someone steals something, he can be put in jail. Same concept. It doesn't matter if a majority of the people are in favor of it (that's just argumentum ad populum, and supports the tyranny of democracy); if they're infringing on the liberty of others, even if it is purportedly to obtain safety, then they do indeed deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[shanek]

Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified.

Until you realize that FDR maneuvered and provoked the Japanese into firing first. It was NOT in the best interests of Japan to have America enter the war if America was just going to sit by neutral.

But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

Probably wouldn't have worked. Germany was honor-bound to go to war against the US after the US declared war on Japan.

 

[Earthborn]

if they're infringing on the liberty of others

I don't read the quote like that. It speaks of 'those who would give up essential liberty' which I interpret as 'those who would give up some of their own essential liberty'. No mention is made that people in the quote infringe on the liberty of others and I think most people will interpret it as that 'those' give up their own liberty too easily. They can only give up what is their own.

 

[shanek]

I don't read the quote like that. It speaks of 'those who would give up essential liberty' which I interpret as 'those who would give up some of their own essential liberty'.

Liberty is a universal concept. You cannot give up YOUR OWN liberty; that's a ridiculous and completely paradoxical concept. It's kind of like saying you made the choice not to have a choice, so you don't have a choice. You can always change your mind.

If I decide to lock myself in my house for safety instead of going out at night, that DOESN'T mean that I no longer have the liberty to decide otherwise and let myself out. But if SOMEONE ELSE locks me in, it's an entirely different matter.

 

[Earthborn]

You cannot give up YOUR OWN liberty;

You cannot give up someone else's liberty, because you don't have someone else's liberty. Removing liberty from someone else would most likely be called 'taking it away' instead of 'giving it up'.

that's a ridiculous and completely paradoxical concept.

I fail to see what is paradoxical about it.

It's kind of like saying you made the choice not to have a choice, so you don't have a choice.

Perfectly possible: someone might sign a contract selling himself into slavery and agreeing that his master can do anything with him as he pleases.

You can always change your mind.

Yes, but when you made the choice not to have a choice earlier, you can't go back and undo your choice. I think that is what Benjamin Franklin tried to warn us about: if you give up your freedom of choice for temporary safety, you'll have a very hard time getting it back.

If I decide to lock myself in my house for safety instead of going out at night, that DOESN'T mean that I no longer have the liberty to decide otherwise and let myself out. But if SOMEONE ELSE locks me in, it's an entirely different matter.

I think Benjamin Franklin talks about a situation where someone agrees to be locked in by another person. By locking yourself in you don't give up any essential liberty, because you still have the key and can get out whenever you want. But if you allow yourself to be locked in, you are at the mercy of that person and have given up essential liberty.

How you can read the quote and assume it is about infringing other people's rights is beyond me.

 

[shanek]

You cannot give up someone else's liberty, because you don't have someone else's liberty. Removing liberty from someone else would most likely be called 'taking it away' instead of 'giving it up'.

No; if you vote for people who take away the liberty of yourself and others, you can certainly be said to be giving it up.

I fail to see what is paradoxical about it.

If you choose not to make a particular choice, does that mean you do or do not have a choice?

Perfectly possible: someone might sign a contract selling himself into slavery and agreeing that his master can do anything with him as he pleases.

Yeah, try that in the real world. You can choose to breach ANY contract; you're just liable for it in civil court.

Yes, but when you made the choice not to have a choice earlier, you can't go back and undo your choice.

Sure you can!

I think that is what Benjamin Franklin tried to warn us about: if you give up your freedom of choice for temporary safety, you'll have a very hard time getting it back.

That is the case for, as I said above, electing someone who will take away liberty from everyone. And that is exactly what he was talking about.

 

[Earthborn]

No; if you vote for people who take away the liberty of yourself and others, you can certainly be said to be giving it up.

This contradicts with your statement that someone cannot give up his own liberty.

If you vote for someone who takes away your own liberty and that of others, you are giving up your own liberty and taking it away from someone else. It does not invalidate the possibility that someone can give up just his own liberty.

If you choose not to make a particular choice, does that mean you do or do not have a choice?

That's not what this is about. This is about making a choice not being allowed to have a choice later on.

Yeah, try that in the real world.

I'm not talking about the real world, I'm giving a hypothetical example. The example shows that it is possible for someone to give up his own liberty.

Sure you can!

Someone who has given up his own liberty - for example by selling himself into slavery, letting himself be locked up or something similar - cannot.

That is the case for, as I said above, electing someone who will take away liberty from everyone. And that is exactly what he was talking about.

Pity he isn't around anymore to ask him. But the quote does not even mention anyone else but the people who 'give up essential liberty'. So I really don't see how you can think those unmentioned people are relevant in it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Until you realize that FDR maneuvered and provoked the Japanese into firing first.

That's why I put the word "brought" in quotes... I know that the U.S. was officially neutral, but did a lot to provoke the wars in both sides (with things like the lend-lease program). Still, it doesn't change the basic question... would the correct 'non-interventionist' policy be not to interfere with Germany in WW2.

Probably wouldn't have worked. Germany was honor-bound to go to war against the US after the US declared war on Japan.

But Germany had shown its willingness to turn its back on 'allies' before; remember they had a treaty with Russia at one time. I'm sure Germany might have been very willing to give up on Japan if they had proper assurances from the U.S. to stay out.

 

[epepke]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

Libertarianism is, approximately, where the left and right wings join after coming full circle. Libertarianism has a lot in common with liberalism and conservatism.

A left-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-right, and a right-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-left.

 

[Nikk]

This contradicts with your statement that someone cannot give up his own liberty.

I'm not talking about the real world, I'm giving a hypothetical example. The example shows that it is possible for someone to give up his own liberty.

Anyone joining a volunteer army does give up their liberty and cannot simply choose to treat the agreement as if it were a civil contract. So your example is far from hypothetical.

Such a person may well believe that by giving up their liberty they will obtain safety and security for themselves and their society. It would then follow from the quote that they deserve neither liberty nor safety. A curious result .

Of course if one regards the quotation as no more than an ill thought out piece of political posturing the problem disappears .

 

[peptoabysmal]

Libertarians remind me of pre-WWII America.
Fiscally conservative and isolationist. We swore we would never let ourselves become like that again after WWII, but like any fashion, it comes around again every once in a while.

 

[shanek]

That's why I put the word "brought" in quotes... I know that the U.S. was officially neutral, but did a lot to provoke the wars in both sides (with things like the lend-lease program). Still, it doesn't change the basic question... would the correct 'non-interventionist' policy be not to interfere with Germany in WW2.

Well, even absent all of that, I still don't think WW2 is all that great an example because it was in large part due to the actions of American forces in WW1 and Woodrow Wilson supporting the Treaty of Versailles that set up the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place. If we had kept a non-interventionist policy in WW1, things would have been quite different.

Actually, if ALL countries had had a noninterventionist policy, there wouldn't even have been a WW1 in the first place. The simple assassination of Archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have pulled all these countries into fighting each other had it not been for their extensive treaties. It would have just been Austria and Serbia, and it would have hardly been the first time in history those two countries fought.

 

[shanek]

Libertarians remind me of pre-WWII America.
Fiscally conservative and isolationist.

We are NOT isolationists. We're NON-INTERVENTIONISTS. There's a HUGE difference.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, even absent all of that, I still don't think WW2 is all that great an example ... If we had kept a non-interventionist policy in WW1, things would have been quite different.

Actually, if ALL countries had had a noninterventionist policy, there wouldn't even have been a WW1 in the first place.

How the world got to the point where WW2 started, as well as the actions of other countries is irrelevant to this discussion. After all, leaders have to deal with messes that have been created, either from their predecessors, or by other countries. Plus, there is nothing that says a non-interventionist leader has to continue the policies of an interventionalist leader.

So, we are still left with the question... Would a non-interventionalist in the U.S. (or Canada for that matter) engage in the war with Germany, had there not been an official delcaration made.

 

[shanek]

How the world got to the point where WW2 started, as well as the actions of other countries is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't see how. Pointing out how all of this was a result of interventionist policies certainly does support the idea that noninterventionist policies are, on the balance, good things.

So, we are still left with the question... Would a non-interventionalist in the U.S. (or Canada for that matter) engage in the war with Germany, had there not been an official delcaration made.

Well, if there's no official declaration, no letters of marque and reprisal, and no direct attacks, the President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to intervene. One of those things has to happen. So I would say that the policy of noninvolvement would apply to this situation. Unless the US was directly attacked or at least threatened by the Axis, there would be no justification for entering the war. Note that Congress at any point could decide otherwise and declare war, taking the decision out of the President's hands.