Libertarianism and 9-11 Denial?

[Brainster]

This post arises out of something the Artistic Macrophage wrote earlier today about a Libertarian forum attacking his "Debunking Uncle Fetzer's 15 Points".

Guys;

I am far from a debating expert, so I was hoping you could help me with respect my posting of "Debunking Fetzers 15 Points", and whether or not this guy "Baiken" (Blog name) aka "Randfreedom" (Libertyforum.org name) has any valid points against what I said, and what should be rebutted.

TAM did a great job on his post, by the way.

But for the purposes of this topic, I spent a little time surfing the Liberty Forums 9-11 Conspiracy Board this evening. What a train wreck! I confess, I thought Rajter (who combines libertarianism with 9-11 and Holocaust Denial) was some sort of freak; on the contrary it looks like he's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm working on a post now about libertarianism and 9-11 Denial. From what I can see, this does not seem to be purely a case of a bunch of the Deniers moving in and taking over the board (although there's probably some of that as well); there really seems to be an active contingent of Libertarian Deniers.

Note that I am not trying to get into the merits and drawbacks of libertarianism or the Libertarians. And I'm not saying it's dominant in the party. For example, we all know Libertarian talk show host Ron Wieck delivered the finest example of a live debunking to Les What'shisname (kudos to JREFers Gravy and MikeW for giving him the ammo). I am just interested in trying to figure out whether it's really a significant subset, and why.

As an example of the latter, we might expect that some libertarians are angry at Bush over the Patriot Act. Libertarians by definition value freedoms quite highly, and it is certainly argued that some liberty was lost due to 9-11. Is it possible that some libertarians might be attracted to 9-11 Denial because it makes a better case for repeal?

What about the extreme anti-Zionist sentiment over there? Check the reactions to a post by Gelignite of Markyx's video of 9-11 Deniers Speak for example. Amazingly, in three pages of replies there are no comments regarding the post; it's all attacks on the poster.

How come you crawled back into the woodwork yesterday, you filthy lying zionist cockroach, when i confronted you on your bullcrap?

The 'truth' will eventually come out and your murderous Zionist peers will be swinging from ropes in front of The Hague.

There is no doubt that Gel Ignite is a professional Ahron Cristol shill to facilitate in the cover-up of the crimes "of and for" the criminal state Israel.

I gave up on responding to that ZioTroll and Complete Liar par excellence Gelignite

Note that those are from four different individuals, and there are plenty more where that came from.

Again, I can see something of a self-interest motive in anti-Zionism. Libertarianism shuns foreign policy. Clearly much US foreign policy has been based on support for Israel and arguably this has caused blowback among Arabs/Muslims. So maybe some libertarians are arguing that without Israel there wouldn't be all the need for this diplomacy/defense/security? And that others, obviously extremists like Rajter, are taking that back a step just as with 9-11 and saying, "What if the event which caused Israel to come into existence, the Holocaust, was actually a fake?"

Any thoughts? Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Are the Liberty Forums not really representative of mainstream libertarian thought? Are there any libertarians who have observed these arguments or debated them--or have not observed anything like this?

ETA: Note this area of the forums, where the Holocaust revisionism comes in.

 

[MarkyX]

Ironically enough, I'm somewhat of a libertarian.

The difference between the mainstream idiots and I is I acknowledge today's reality, they don't.

 

[gumboot]

Ironically enough, I'm somewhat of a libertarian.

Excuse my ignorance of American political categorisation...

What's a libertarian?

-Andrew

 

[T.A.M.]

When I actually went over there and looked at some of the posts, I was stunned. It was like a more vile, more angry group of LC guys. They were just plain angry and mean.

As for Rajter, they seem to think he is educated enough, and qualified enough to do a comparison study on the "Validity" of the various papers on the WTC colapse.

Rajter's comparison of papers

It is sad. Am I missing something. Is Ratjer a scientist? is he an engineer? Is he studied in the validity of the topics in question, or even in analyzing scientific papers in general?

 

[Brainster]

Excuse my ignorance of American political categorisation...

What's a libertarian?

-Andrew

It is argued that (US) conservatives believe in strong business freedom and weak personal freedom (e.g., no abortions) and (US) liberals in strong personal freedom, but weak business freedom (regulatory agencies), and that libertarians combine the strong business freedom with strong personal freedom. Sounds great, but they don't seem to be able to attract more than a couple percent in any major elections.

The Libertarian party is overwhelming made up of white males, somewhat similar to the Deniers in that respect, but they are usually considered to be smarter than average. I note a lot fewer spelling and grammatical errors over there than at the Looser forum, but the same poor argumentation.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

When I actually went over there and looked at some of the posts, I was stunned. It was like a more vile, more angry group of LC guys. They were just plain angry and mean.

As for Rajter, they seem to think he is educated enough, and qualified enough to do a comparison study on the "Validity" of the various papers on the WTC colapse.

Rajter's comparison of papers

It is sad. Am I missing something. Is Ratjer a scientist? is he an engineer? Is he studied in the validity of the topics in question, or even in analyzing scientific papers in general?

doesnt look liek hes analyizing the papers so much as analyzing his agreement with the conclusions

 

[T.A.M.]

From what I can gather, Ratjer's analysis rates all the WTC collapse papers based on their acceptance, ignorance, or refuting of 10 pieces of CD evidence (E1-E10), but I have not looked deeply into his study, so I could be wrong.

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is a paper, from Ratjer (rajter, ratcat, what ever), you might find interesting...

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=refuting_demolition_debunkers

Enjoy...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Two different kinds of libertarianism the first being based off of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged and what not) and the other being less... cultlike. The second is more of a smaller gov't == good mentality. Very pro-capitalist. Pro personal responsibility. Idealistic in the idea that people will do the right thing because they'll realize it's for their own long term good (i.e. people that live in the neighborhood handle the upkeep of the roads there rather than some level of local gov't doing it).

If the Libertarians over there are more of the Randian breed, I can definitely see them buying into history revisionism and 9/11 denial. After all, Rand turned into quite the cult leader by the end.

 

[Ladewig]

Excuse my ignorance of American political categorisation...

What's a libertarian?

-Andrew

Libertarians believe that the vast majority of U.S. federal expeditures are well beyond the scope of the government. Specifically, they believe that the government should be doing only those things that individuals cannot acheive on their own (e.g. national defense). They believe that the free market is vastly more effective than any regulations that the government has implemented and as such all business regulations (from work place saftey to monopoly pricing restrictions to food inspection) should be repealed. They believe that the government should not be involved in providing free or subsidized medical care, free or subsidized education, or free or subsidized national parks.

Brainster referred to liberatarians and Libertarians because the capital "L" version refers to hard-core followers of the philosophy (e.g. those who would sell the Grand Canyon in parcels to private developers who would erect hotels, restaurants and billboards along the rim). The small case "L" libertarians believe that there can be some amount of compromise in certain matters.

 

[MarkyX]

Excuse my ignorance of American political categorisation...

What's a libertarian?

-Andrew

To summarize it: Someone who wants a really small government.

For example, I don't believe the government should be playing Nanny (healthcare, education, and welfare are a few examples). I've witnessed a few things that are government-controlled that convienced me that they should be private as opposed to public run. In a sense, Libertarians believe that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it does not put harm into other people (whether indirectly or directly).

The problem with the mainstream libertarian is they want to shrink the government up to the point where they can drown the thing in a bathtub. Some even suggest private roads or police Alex Jones and Aaron Russell are two examples of right-wing libertarian extremists (or I like to call, Anarchists in Business suits). Does it really come to a surprise that some libertarians would use 9/11 as an excuse to point out how big and evil gumberment has become and that their way is right? That's exactly what Alex Jones is doing it, and no one questions the man.

 

[Gravy]

Brainster, you may want to contact Ron Wieck, the Libertarian who tore Les Jamieson apart when hosting that cable-access TV show. No doubt he's sensitive to 9/11 deniers in his party. I have his email addy if you want.

 

[gumboot]

It is argued that (US) conservatives believe in strong business freedom and weak personal freedom (e.g., no abortions) and (US) liberals in strong personal freedom, but weak business freedom (regulatory agencies), and that libertarians combine the strong business freedom with strong personal freedom. Sounds great, but they don't seem to be able to attract more than a couple percent in any major elections.

Thanks!

In my experience 9/11 CTs seems to get a lot of consideration amongst more liberal people, and if anything more intelligent people too - at least, academics etc. who work in areas of "advance thought".

My theory is people in areas like philosophy solve problems by thinking in very clever advanced ways (supposedly). So they think they can solve something like 9/11 by thinking a lot in a clever way.

This is, of course nonsense. But it explains why they're so resistant to looking at real physical evidence, choosing instead to theorise out outlandish ideas and notions.

They're a 9/11 think tank. Their objective is "Okay, find the most outlandish, but do-able, explanation for 9/11 you can"

Of course they are going about it all wrong. 9/11 is not a hypothetical scenario. It is real. The objective is to find out what DID happen, not what MIGHT have happened or COULD have happened.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

The problem with the mainstream libertarian is they want to shrink the government up to the point where they can drown the thing in a bathtub. Some even suggest private roads or police

Right, gotcha...

It's sometimes translating US politcs into NZ politics, they seem to be very different. Perhaps one of our biggest differences.

My father is the only member of my family who has actually spent any time in the USA (Norfolk, VA, with stop-over in LA) and he basically described it as "pretty much the same as New Zealand" - although he did find it neat that going for a run in the morning was JUST like a Disney movie - with squirrels scampering along branches to watch him and Blue Jays all about!

But with the politics thing the differences are underscored.

Our National Party (one of the two major parties) are probably half between Republican and Libertarian, if you can believe that!

Labour (current government) are closer to the Democrats I think, but here's the funny thing, it is always Labour that makes our country more like a Police state! In the 70's under Labour we were practically a communist nation.

-Andrew

 

[Darth Rotor]

Again, I can see something of a self-interest motive in anti-Zionism. Libertarianism shuns foreign policy. Clearly much US foreign policy has been based on support for Israel and arguably this has caused blowback among Arabs/Muslims. So maybe some libertarians are arguing that without Israel there wouldn't be all the need for this diplomacy/defense/security? And that others, obviously extremists like Rajter, are taking that back a step just as with 9-11 and saying, "What if the event which caused Israel to come into existence, the Holocaust, was actually a fake?"

If you do even modest research, you find that Israel has received an immense amout of US aid, and forgiven loans, that when compared to its small size jumps right out at you. Not just the 3 billion per year from the Camp David deal with Egypt, but at least that and more each year as supplements, a lot of it tied to defense spending. This basically makes Israel a bit of a welfare state, sucking on the nipple of Uncle Sugar.

That profligate spending on a small nation drives "small government" Libertarians nuts: that money is largess of big government, and "the man on the street" is not keen to throw money in those figures at a "welfare state" (client?) that has the highest per capita income in the area and better than some European countries. The finger is pointed at all this filthy lucre coming from Congress due to "behind the scenes" deals by . . . you guessed it . . . American Jews (and some strains of Evangelical Protestants) who are sympathetic to Israel, and who are extremely effective lobbyists.

For more, see Mearsheimer and Walt's recent 40 page discussion of the Israel Lobby. A very interesting read.

DR

 

[R.Mackey]

Right, gotcha...

It's sometimes translating US politcs into NZ politics, they seem to be very different. Perhaps one of our biggest differences.

My wife and I were privileged to honeymoon in NZ. Wonderful country. And I can't imagine how your politics and ours could ever be compared directly... probably to your credit.

Speaking as someone who identifies as a Jeffersonian libertarian (note "small L") -- but who is registered as a Green, and I insist the two are not as incompatible as they sound -- it is a difficult thing to define. In my experience, there are three kinds of Libertarians in the United States:

1. White-collar types who demand lower taxes and less government interference with business, but who are pretty much neutral on civil liberties, possibly excepting the 2nd Amendment (viz. firearm ownership). I've known lots of these. Most are, in my opinion, basically Reagan Republicans but who don't want to identify as such.

2. Anarchists, varying from the disaffected to the downright paranoid. The Libertarian party attracts plenty of wackos. These are the guys that convinced me to leave the party.

3. A small, easily shouted-down minority that ultimately believes in expanding personal freedoms, such as the right of gay marriage, abortion, relaxed drug criminalization, etc., but is not so hard over about taxation as to call for abolishing the military or setting the IRS ablaze.

My apologies if I left anyone out.

I'd really like to see a viable third party in this country. The problem is that none of them are in any way moderate. So, for now, I grit my teeth and tolerate the occasional Maoist or star-child that steals the headlines and reaffirms the Greens stereotype of America-hating, stoned misfits, and try to support the more balanced candidates when they come along. And there are some. They don't make the international news, but at the local level there have been some positive results.

Nonetheless, this last Presidential election found me voting Democrat. It happens.

 

[gumboot]

I'd really like to see a viable third party in this country. The problem is that none of them are in any way moderate.

I know the feeling... here are some policies from minority parties in our parliament:

-Lowering non-White immigration
-Lower retirement age for Maori than for everyone else
-No Defense Force
-Additional rights and privelages for married couples over everyone else

Go us...



-Andrew

 

[Earl The Tall]

Whoa whoa whoa, hey before you guys start making connections to Deniers and libertarians. I need to point out that I am a libertarian and in no way 9-11 denier.

3. A small, easily shouted-down minority that ultimately believes in expanding personal freedoms, such as the right of gay marriage, abortion, relaxed drug criminalization, etc., but is not so hard over about taxation as to call for abolishing the military or setting the IRS ablaze.

This sounds a bit like me and let me say I feel like I am in great company with people like Drew Cary.

 

[R.Mackey]

That sounded a lot like me, as well. I suspect we have quite a few small-L libertarians on this board, and that nearly all of us fit the above description.

Still, I jumped ship. Grab a party, make it your own. Hardly matters which one.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Whoa whoa whoa, hey before you guys start making connections to Deniers and libertarians. I need to point out that I am a libertarian and in no way 9-11 denier.

Ditto here. I'm a "small 'l' libertarian" (i.e. one who agrees with the ideals of libertarianism, but is not affiliated the embarrassment known and the Libertarian Party) and I'm 100% certain that Al Qaeda pulled off the job and they did it by themselves.

That said, I DO think that the politicians have greatly exaggerated the terrorist "threat" to give the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies powers that were once considered unconstitutional, not to mention using fear and jingoism to keep themselves and a certain dim-witted, Bible-beating, chicken-hawk president in the Oval Office.