RoR: Forum

So some of you apparently think that had the US stayed out of WWII – which, to remind you once again, Ayn Rand thought would have been preferable – Hitler would have overrun Russia easily. Others of you think that Stalin would have been able to take over Eastern Europe just as easily as he did.

Not a single one of you seems to care one bit about Operation Keelhaul, and the US participation in rounding up two million refugees, loading them onto boxcars, and sending them to certain death in the clutches of Stalin. No one seems interested in the arguments that the US helped Stalin expand his empire beyond which he would have been able to without US intervention.

It seems to me that you guys look only at the benefits of US intervention, such as the crushing of the Kaiser, Hitler, and Tojo, but that you are indifferent to the costs, such as the rise of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban and the loss of millions of lives and American civil, economic and Constitutional liberty. Just like any other socialists who love government aggression and only look at what they perceive as benefits (e.g. money for schools and the poor) while ignoring the unseen costs (e.g. money that could have gone to other uses), you all seem to whitewash the history of U.S. government failures.

I'm a Saddamite because I opposed the U.S. going to war there? (Though I would have also opposed the U.S. supporting the Baathists in the first place.)

Does that mean Rand was pro-Soviet because she opposed an invasion of the USSR? Or that you people are supportive of any regime you think the government shouldn't topple? Are you pro-poverty because you oppose government programs to alleviate poverty?

Or, perhaps, does government redistribution of wealth, aside from the moral issues, have economic costs and destructive effects, and fail to do what it's supposed to? Do you all think that government warmaking, aside from the collateral damage in innocent life, has no economic costs and destructive effects, and always succeeds and doesn't ever make things worse?

I wonder: who here would have supported the Spanish-American War?

Post 61

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:48pm

"It is your equating the war time killings committed by the US government and its armed forces with the evils of Hitler and Stalin that I object very much."

I equate too! I equate too!

Let's see if I understand. Bad, evil, Germans kill civilians. Good, righteous Americans kill civilians. But by all means lets not equate. Anything but that. Because that would be TRUTH.

You anti-Sadaamites(See, I'll sportingly go along with your labels. I'm a Sadammite? Yeehah, Sadaamism forever!) mention "reason" occasionally as a sort of buzzword. I suppose that's how I can tell you're objectivists. Let's use some reason, shall we?

Attacking people, that is, aggressing against their rights, is bad. This is called a basic premise. You must share this basic premise to follow me here. So violating others' rights is bad. Everyone has a right to their life. That is, to own yourself. This is clear. If not, who does? And how could you even be called _your_self? So killing anyone, except defensively, must be considered as one of the most egregious violations of their rights possible. And therefore, given the premise, one of the most bad things possible to do. And therefore, not an action we ought to be apologists for, but rather denunciators against.

It is easily demonstratable that soldiers for Washington D.C. have committed this very crime. They have taken away the lives of those from whom it ought not to have been taken away. They have killed innocent civilians who had committed no aggression. Thousands in fact. These soldiers killed offensively. And continue even now to kill offensively. Killing offensively is called murder. Those who do it are called murderers. Reason requires that we admit this, even when the murderers are wrapt in the flag. So no, I don't support "our" troops. They aren't my troops. I don't murder people. And I try to avoid paying the bills of those who do.

Now, another point against the anti-Sadaamites: you're far too trusting. Can't you try be just a *bit* jaded and cynical? Can't you consider, as a vague distant possibility, that maybe the swamplords in Washington D.C. might *not* have the welfare of random strangers around the world as the top priority in their life?
The Horror!
That maybe they themselves benefit when they launch into wars?
Great Scott!
That maybe their justifications for war are lies?
Ehgad!
That perhaps they couldn't care less about American security and are mostly interested in improving their own situations, which for these scum means enhancing and consolidating their own ill-gotten power and wealth?
Make it stop! Make it stop!

Yes, Virginia, rulers throughout history have liked going to war. Never was it for the benefit of their subjects. Never was it for the benefit of the invadee. Everyone from Napoleon to the Khan may have wrapped up their wars in glory and honor, and some even invented Great Quests of Liberation.

But, for me, the only great and honorable war is a defensive war. The American Revolution was such a war, for which a sequel may someday be needed and I hope that we will all stand on the side of individualism and liberty. I kindly assume that those of you here who are anti-Sadaamite support the occupation of Iraq because you have bought in wholeheartedly to the advertisement of it as a defensive war, defending freedom and justice against the Vile Black Oppessor Sadaam Hussein who was on the brink of attacking North America and destroy all that is good and dear to our hearts. This is of course false, and in the future I advise you to take your official government pronoucements with a bit more salt. Maybe even, dare I say it?, skepticism!

But, realistically, it is still too fresh and recent for many of you to change your minds. In twenty years perhaps. In the meantime, I hope you can see that there is a case for so-called isolationism. Throughout the first 100 years of the american republic this was not even an issue, so deeply ingrained was isolationism in the american mentality and tradition. Advocating involvement in distant foreign wars would be furiously denounced as anti-american. As well it should be.

Anyway, the only one I'm denouncing is Lindsay, and only because he's a fool. It's only fair. If anyone else here actually beleives the International Society for Individual Liberty is evil, nay, = evil, then consider yourself denounced as well, but I don't see how anyone could. No, for a belief like that, you need someone like Lindsay. Go to their web site http://isil.org . It's great. For instance, see how you like this cool introduction to the philosophy of liberty: http://isil.org/resources/introduction.html

Post 62

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:55pm

In response to Mr. Eitchert's latest post, perhaps I can briefly attempt to put things in perspective.

I doubt very much that anyone has effectively refuted the evidence that Robert Stinnett and many other historians have compiled that strongly suggests FDR's complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor. There is simply too much evidence that will not go away. No one disputes that the US had broken the Japanese diplomatic code, which itself was ripe with numerous references to people, places and events that hinted broadly at Pearl Harbor, since that location was the most attractive for a Japanese attack. However, Stinnett provides good evidence that the US had also broken the navel code, unbeknownst to the politically-unconnected Admiral Kimmel, who was purposefully kept out of the loop that ran from intelligence at Pearl to Washington. Kimmel the fall guy replaced another Admiral who had objected in the oval office loudly, strenuously, and heatedly to FDR's demand that the Pacific fleet be moved to Pearl Harbor from San Francisco; FDR fired the uppity loudmouth very shortly thereafter, following the election. (However, FDR peeled off the five new US aircraft carriers from the fleet, preferring instead to sacrifice aging, nearly obsolete battleships and destroyers.)

Stinnett recounts in detail a long list of deceitful and treacherous maneuvers used to isolate and straightjacket Kimmel: warnings that were silenced, intelligence that was purposfully routed away, earnest defensive maneuvers that were vetoed by high navy brass. A colorful example of this last took place on the high seas days before December 7, when high navy brass ordered Kimmel to cease and desist from navel war games conducted in the very location through which the Japanese convey would steam days later. Another example is the evidence Stinnett presents that proves the Japanese convey did not maintain radio silence as court historians have long maintained.

Moreover, completely aside from the wealth of incriminating evidence documented by Stinnett, Congress in recent years unanimously passed a resolution absolving Kimmel of responsibility, citing intelligence information that had been withheld from the Admiral.
Mr. Eitchert ought to understand that, just as government "scientists" are quick to confirm the certainty of global warming, and Federal Reserve System economists unhesitatingly "debunk" the merits of a gold standard, so public university court historians reflexively dismiss evidence challenging the sacred cows they are paid to defend.

In fact, it seems clear that as much as those court historians strain to defend the Greatest Sacred Cow in American history--the "only truly good war"--Mr. Eitchert seeks at least as fervently to defend what I am sure is his most cherished illusion: that WWII was a just crusade, blemished perhaps, but basically noble. And here is where we disagree most fundamentally.

The truth is, the US under FDR was at war with Germany on the seas, and was conducting economic war with Japan, for a long time before the outbreak of overt hostilities. I do not think even the most strident defender of FDR's Holy War can build a credible case that Amerian entry was related to the defense--immediate or eventual--of the United States. There is zero evidence that Hitler had the ambition or anything approaching that capability.

Mr. Eitchert himself reveals as much when he declares that "it was high time" the US got after the fascists in Asia. No discussion of defending American shores against some looming assault from Asia. Mr. Eitchert simply applauds getting after fascists regardless of the issue of defensive versus offensive engagement, and regardless of the ensuing assault on American freedom by an elected American dictator.

However, if it is proper to drag American citizens to war to enforce Mr. Eitchert's notions of spiritual purity, unrelated to the legitimate function of government to defend its citizens within its borders from rights violations by domestic or foreign criminals, then additional possibilities for spiritual enforcement present themselves. Perhaps government ought to run a public school system to instill the wisdom of Atlas Shrugged and Human Action. Unless one can realisitically, compellingly prove that World War II was about national defense, then in principle there is no difference in the justification for these "programs".

Clearly, Mr. Eitchert's embrace of WWII as a noble, collective crusade for the betterment of mankind is exactly what Rand referred to as the ethic of altruism. She wrote as much in the quote posted by Anthony concerning Rand's comments about the First And Second World Wars. Just as clearly, Mr. Eitchert's defense of this costly and very deadly military adventure is incongruent with his desire to defend minimal taxation and a mini government. You can have your non-defensive war, or you can have freedom from the draft, from taxation, and from the regimentation of American life. However, you cannot have both.

I will not go into the history leading up to the terrible war-crime of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, except to point out that the Japanese had made several attempts to sue for peace prior to that tragedy. No invasion was necessary, because Japanese unconditional surrender was unnecessary. Once the war had commenced, conditional surrender would have been far more appropriate as judged first by the standard of the defense of American citizens, and second by the principle that human life must never be exterminated needlessly.

Post 63

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:09pm

Linz,

I have a question, how much longer are the inane ravings of these fools going to be tolerated?

Having to sift through this hate-filled anti-American revisionist crap is revolting. And not just on this thread, it has spilled over onto other threads as well.

Let me see what I have learned: America is inherently evil, there is a total moral equivalency between the United States and among others; Saddam's Iraq, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, and an advocacy for a degree of Pacifism and Appeasement that gives a whole new meaning to the word treason.

I realize that all open forums have a degree of cranks, nuts, and wackos - but this is getting out of hand.

Please take out the garbage, it's begining to stink so bad that its getting hard to smell anything else.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/25, 4:45pm)

Post 64

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:49pm

Having to sift through this hate-filled anti-American revisionist view is revolting.

Thank you George.
Revolting. Revolting???? That is too tepid to describe most of what I have read on this thread. The well reasonned argument of anti war individualists I can handle, though I now disagree with them all. The rewriting of history however, is intentional malevolence.

John

Post 65

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:30pm

I wonder how many people here supported Clinton's Kosovo War. If any of the pro-Bush "individualists" opposed Clinton's war, I wonder on what grounds. Were they pro-Milosevic? Were they pro-genocide of the Kosovars? Were they anti-American?

Or, perhaps, did they think that Clinton was lying about his intentions, inflating the case for war, exaggerating about the threat posed or atrocities conducted? Did they think that perhaps the U.S. would do more harm than good, or maybe even that the killing of Serbians and Albanians was criminal and failed to conform to the Constitutional mandates on the president in regard to war and national defense?

Hmmm. If Clinton can't be trusted, I wonder why the other American rulers can.
(Edited by Anthony Gregory on 1/26, 10:37am)

Post 66

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 8:45am

Hi Rodney,

I understand the impetus behind trying to salvage the word "selfish." But a word is just a label for a concept; it's the concept we need to seize and defend, not the label.

Universally, the label "selfish" is attributed to the behavior of a Peter Keating type. The Random House dictionary on my desk defines the word as "caring chiefly for oneslef or one's own interests, regardless of others" and "characterized by concern only for oneself." The accepted connotation for "selfish," then, is not rational self-interest as we understand it: it's subjectivist self-absorption in the infantile, narcissistic sense.

We DO need a label for our own brand of rational self-interest, because that concept must be fought for and championed. But in fighting for the concept, we shouldn't get hung up over its label.

Similar considerations attend the debate over "libertarianism." It's a fairly modern neologism that was always a clunky mouthful, and, from its earliest usage, always loosely defined. The reason it was loosely defined was precisely so that it could rally a broad, philosophically ecumenical, anti-government movement.

And that's exactly what the "libertarian movement" is: an ideologically incoherent mess, united only by shared antipathy toward government...more or less.

But if being "anti-government" is the sole criteria for admission to the movement, then those with "more" antipathy for government -- the anarchists -- seem more consistently "libertarian" than do limited-government advocates, whose antipathy is seen as "less." Given the movement's defining anti-state premise, the latter can only be seen as "unprincipled pragmatists" and "compromisers."

Face it, folks: In a movement standing on only two absolutes -- state-hatred and philosophical agnosticism -- Objectivists can't win.

But in reality, state-hatred and philosophical agnosticism are no way to successfully define or defend liberty -- let alone the many additional values which a free society requires, and which Objectivism upholds.

So quite apart from our debate over using the label "selfish," I submit that the verdict is clear about continued use of the term "libertarian." Perhaps in isolated New Zealand the term is still broadly associated with the Objectivist efforts of Lindsay Perigo and his allies. But in the wider world, it's now generally associated with a movement endorsing anarchism, isolationism, anti-Americanism and personal subjectivism.

I therefore support the general thrust (if not the specific terminological recommendation) of R. J. Rummell elsewhere on this forum. We should jettison the corrupted label of "libertarian" as a term to describe the Objectivist politics. To the contrary: we should do everything in our power to distinguish the Objectivist politics from "libertarianism."

Post 67

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:16am

George, you are being too polite. Seriously! To these anti-American propagandists, there isn’t a moral equivalence between America and the totalitarians. They see America as being worse – we are the cause of all the 20th century totalitarian slaughter.

And you are wrong that they are pacifists. They are worse than pacifists. Pacifists are honest and they tell you they won’t fight in any war. Nihilo-libertarians posture as being for defense. They tell you they would support defense, without tax funding, if we were actually attacked. Thus, they won’t fight in any real war or allow us to prepare for real wars until it is too late.

Of course, we could go into the anti-concepts, the barrage dubious statements of an arbitrary nature, context-dropping, concrete-bound thinking, etc. The assault on the mind may be worse than the assault on historical truth. We could go into all that, but why bother when it is all too obvious. What’s the motivation?

Post 68

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:21am

As a kid, when I first heard “selfish” used as a pejorative—long before I had ever heard of Ayn Rand—I right away said to myself: “That’s wrong, it’s good to be selfish” (self + -ish). Even if you accept the definition “characterized by concern only for oneself,” if one takes this to mean as a primary, you have to defend it. In fact, my own dictionary gives the single independent sense “concerned chiefly or only with oneself.”

Add to this the fact that the label is today used often to condemn properly selfish virtues, and you may see why I advocate use of the term. The insight behind this unabashed usage is not hard to communicate to independent, rational minds, and can serve as “a foot in the door” in reaching many who have abandoned the realm of the intellect for fear of the irrationality that dominates it these days.

I agree with the rest of your post. I avoid libertarianism like the plague—both the term and the idea. I champion Objectivism and individual rights, and describe myself as a radical for capitalism. This last is not an ideal label, but it’s the best we’ve got.

Post 69

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:36am

Regarding Mark Humphrey's latest diatribe
My name is Eichert, not Eitchert please. I want to first confess an error in that I looked at Stinnett's book on Amazon and saw I was mistaken, the book I had read was from another conspiracy theorist because this one had not been written at that time, but it was very similar in its theories. Just look at some of the posts by reviewers - they clearly refute many of the claims regarding the codes and cite facts I am less familiar with (for example, the code breaking described is an earlier code, and not the more advanced code version they actually used, and it is lumped together as one code).
I did see the History Channel show about the book, though, and while I don't assume the History Channel is accurate, this program was excellent in that it presented the most time to Stinnett, but also time to opponents, who ripped his argument to pieces as well - with facts, not because they were "paid by the government" to do so. Again, this book and its ilk are just conspiracy garbage. Run searches on this stuff and also the previously mentioned Operation Keelhaul (which I agree was an egregious error, as were very many of FDRs policies), and you get anything from Libertarians to Neo-Nazis to Communists to Conspiracy Theorists and their take on these incidents as the "proof" that they are correct.
I wrote more, but decided to delete it, because there is no further point in arguing with such people. If this is what you believe, go to MoveOn.Org, where they will love you.

Post 70

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:26pm

John Wiltbank said:

"Let's see if I understand. Bad, evil, Germans kill civilians. Good, righteous Americans kill civilians. But by all means lets not equate. Anything but that. Because that would be TRUTH.

Context Context Context. Killing a person on your property attempting to do you harm is killing. To drop the context of the situation is tantamount to a telling a lie.

Attacking people, that is, aggressing against their rights, is bad. This is called a basic premise.

Context context context: Saddam aready initiated force against us.

You must share this basic premise to follow me here. So violating others' rights is bad. Everyone has a right to their life. That is, to own yourself. This is clear. If not, who does? And how could you even be called _your_self? So killing anyone, except defensively, must be considered as one of the most egregious violations of their rights possible. And therefore, given the premise, one of the most bad things possible to do. And therefore, not an action we ought to be apologists for, but rather denunciators against.

It is easily demonstratable that soldiers for Washington D.C. have committed this very crime. They have taken away the lives of those from whom it ought not to have been taken away. They have killed innocent civilians who had committed no aggression. Thousands in fact. These soldiers killed offensively. And continue even now to kill offensively. Killing offensively is called murder. Those who do it are called murderers. Reason requires that we admit this, even when the murderers are wrapt in the flag. So no, I don't support "our" troops. They aren't my troops. I don't murder people. And I try to avoid paying the bills of those who do.

Context context context: These people lived in a totalitarian state that initiated force against us. The invasion was not hidden. They new we were coming. While their deaths are horrible, they reflect on Saddam and his regime and not us. He is to blame for their deaths. period.

Post 71

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:49am

Operation Keelhaul was "an egregious error"? Murdering two million people who had finally become free from the clutches of Communist totalitarianism by sending them back to Stalin was "an egregious error"? I can't believe what I'm hearing! This was one of the most horrible atrocities in 20th century history! This was as many people murdered, approximately, as were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge!

The minimum wage might be an "egregious error." Raising a sales tax is an "egregious error." Even these I would characterize as much worse. But Operation Keelhaul was not simply an "egregious error."

Jeez. You say we libertarians whitewash the history of Communist totalitarianism! Maybe if you listened more closely to the arguments against the US allying with the Soviet Union, providing Stalin weapons, money and victims, helping him expland his empire, you'd realize that we aren't the ones whitewashing Communist oppression: the people who defend U.S. support of that oppression, or brush it off as an "error" are whitewashing it, simply on account of the fact that the U.S. was so involved in it. The U.S., after all, teamed up with the Soviet Union to create the U.N. (and, incidentally, the two teamed up in the 1980s to defend Saddam against U.N. censure).

And no, this is not the same as blaming "America" or "us." Did you load people onto boxcars and ship them to Stalin? No. If you feel like I'm attacking you when I attack FDR and Truman, you have a wholly unhealthy conception of the state, even from sixty years ago, as some sort of an extension of yourself -- a particularly unhealthy conception for an individualist to have.

Post 72

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:20am

In defense of the great Bob Stinnett.

To see so much slander of the great Bob Stinnett, a man that even many pro-war libertarians I know respect and agree with, is quite unsettling.

For more on his work, and the work of other patriotic Americans who have come forward to tell the truth about Pearl Harbor, see The Independent Institute archive on Pearl Harbor. He debates some of his critics, one on one, and blows their critiques out of the water.

Anyone who takes World War II history seriously cannot discount the entire historiography surrounding FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. You can't simply ignore War Secretary Stimson's diary entry that said "FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday" and that "the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

You can't simply ignore Admiral McCollum's memo that listed an 8-point plan to get Japan to fire the first shot. That was their intention.

And no, I didn't first learn about this from some "leftists," but rather from a conservative schoolteacher.

Read Stinnett's book and then see if you still believe in the FDR line. It's funny to see so many people who so strongly oppose the New Deal think FDR thought only for the good of the American people by the time WWII came around.

Post 73

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:25pm

Context context context: These people lived in a totalitarian state that initiated force against us. The invasion was not hidden. They new we were coming. While their deaths are horrible, they reflect on Saddam and his regime and not us. He is to blame for their deaths. period.

Even if you believe in the conspiracy theory -- which even Bush and co. don't dare adopt -- that Saddam was behind either 9/11 or the WTC bombing in 1993, this was after the US government initiated force on Iraqi civilians on multiple occasions, first by arming and funding their oppressor, Saddam Hussein.

If it is allowed to attack and kill people because of the aggression of the government that rules them, nearly all people on earth would be fair game under this odd understanding of "self defense." The 9/11 terrorists also believed they were acting in defense when they murdered innocent Americans, based on the collectivist mindset that innocents should be punished for the crimes of the state that rules them.

Post 74

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:44pm

Wow, Ethan, congratulations, you're coherent. Yes, I understand you feel that Sadaam somehow initiated force against you. I stated that in my post. If you're supporting this war which I think is an agressive war because you feel it's defensive, then at least we understand each other.

So can you concede that just because I conclude it is an aggressive war, doesn't make me evil? Of course you can, because you're reasonable.

I can debate justified war theory, the Iraq war specifically, etc., but mostly I felt like joining in this thread because Lindsay Perigo was making the oh-so-intelluctual and firmly-grounded-in-reason assertion that Rational Review and ISIL are evil. Evil personified, evil itself. And followers of Sadaam Hussein. Presumably Lindsay is currently agitating to see a preemptive strike launched against ISIL. He'll bomb ISIL headquarters to the ground along with all the homes of its contributors. Yes, their deaths will be horrible, but they reflect on Thomas Knapp, Lew Rockwell, and their regime and not us. They are to blame for their deaths. Period.

Anyway, to reply to your post:

Context Context Context. Killing a person on your property attempting to do you harm is killing. To drop the context of the situation is tantamount to a telling a lie.

I agree with you that killing defensively is justified. I thought I was clear on that.

Context context context: Saddam aready initiated force against us.

Yes, I understand you think that. But what are you talking about context? My statement ("Attacking people, that is, aggressing against their rights, is bad. This is called a basic premise.") *had* no context. I was making a pure logical assertion and didn't get to contexts and specifics until later.

Also, you should be more precise with your language. You say "initiated force against us." "Us" as in a group of people not including me, nor you, sir. Choose a different pronoun.

By the way, Anthony Gregory, I agree with you and everything, and would just like to point out that you kind of lambasted Rick Pasatto out of misunderstanding. He was saying the same thing as you, that is, the so-called Civil War was bad.

Quoting Anthony Gregory:

Rick Pasotto:

Jason Pappas was doing fine with his explanation until the end when he wrote
What is the cause of the Civil War? The Civil War was a direct result of the American Revolution.

No, the War of Northern Aggression was a result of the denial of the American Revolution. It was the continuation of the mercantalist policies that some of the founders advocated. One does well to remember that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published the same year as the Declaration of Independence. It takes time for ideas to be understood and to propagate that understanding.

Lincoln's war was one of the worst times for American liberty. I don't understand how anyone who pretends to believe in liberty can glorify the very reasons we lost so much. We wouldn't have income tax, central banking, tax withholding, central management of the economy -- we would never have suffered conscription (war slavery), censorship, gun control, or the other great assaults on our freedom -- if it weren't for war. The state historically grew out of war, expanded with war, became oppressive with war. The glorification of this institutionalized mass murder is quite odd to hear among people who claim to believe in life, liberty and property.

Make it a great day.

Post 75

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 1:44am

Linz: "Excuse me if I cannot help but vomit at the spectacle of (pseudo-)libertarians signing on as fellow-travellers with the scum of the earth (the actual perpetrators of the Iraqi carnage) in such parlous times."

Vomit all you wish, Linz, but your statement has nothing whatever to do with the people at ISIL. Just as it has nothing to do with some of the Solo people who believe we should not have gone to war against Iraq. As you know, I disagree with them, but I respect them.

Yes, there are "pseudo-libertarians" who are against the war and against everything about America. Save your up-chucking for them.

I will not again go into the reasons for my objections to your attitude -- it has been done to death on Solo -- but since you raise the issue once more, I want to be on the record, once more, as profoundly objecting.

Barbara

Post 76

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 6:50am

All I will say is this: There is a time and place for strong words. I have certainly used them myself, albeit not as often as some and hopefully with reason and justice as their backing. It is possible to make strong denuniciations and challenges without resorting to what I view as over-the-top accusations and name-calling. Certainly the banner of ISIL flying over the news reports implies some connection and endorsment of the reporting. Calling on ISIL to explain this is only just. While I too reject a reason-passion dichotomy their is a point when you can go too far. A screaming or bold headline is great for grabbing attention and drawing fire. We should not concern ourselves with drawing heat for being just. That being said, it is always wise to proceed with prudence. Its a fine line to walk betweeen justice and pandering to the evil and irrational. Many an evil idea hides behind politeness and political correctness. A favorite tool of those who seek to destroy freedom is righteous indignation at being challenged harshly and in public.

I keep in my mind the SOLO credo and the need to have a kick-ass attitude. This I temper with the recognition that our lives as rational human beings and our desire to change the world has long term goals and long term consequences. Some times our passion for what we see as an injustice can lead us down the path to hasty judgments and strong words that can have unforseen and bad effects. As I said, its a fine line. Before this article and thread I had never heard of ISIL or the news service mentioned. As the editor noted this war has galvanized both sides, but as we have seen, it is possible to be against the war or timing of the war, or handling of the war and still not be a saddamite. Certainly we have seen some saddamites posting in this thread lately. Since I haven't read the news service reports I can not charaterize their stance one way or the other, but if they are Anti-America or anti freedom, then Lindsay was just to call them on it. The manner of his calling, and the brush he paints the under-writers of the news service strikes me as too broad or a least too hasty. When making bold statements its possible for them to blow up in your face and cause more harm than good. I'm often beset by the same passion to strike down the unjust and evil as Lindsay is, I just try to balance that KASS factor with enough prudence to avoid handing my enemies weapons to use against me. I support Lindsay and his passionate reason and SOLO whole-heartedly, but in this case I am in disagreement with the tone used.

Ethan

Post 77

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 6:59am

** I think I am guilty of feeding the trolls **

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 1/27, 8:27am)

Post 78

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:11am

The ISIL is one of the oldest libertarian organizations around, with origins going back to the 1960s. It has reached millions of people with pamphlets and literature, and has gotten free-market books into authoritarian countries and Communist societies. The amount of good done by this fine organization cannot be overstated. To call its members evil is pure bull.

http://www.isil.org

I happen to know its president and vice president. That anyone would call them evil, based on the fact that their news service reports the biggest news every day, is just absurd.

Post 79

Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:11am