A Libertarian Against Liberty?

[Brother Buzzard]

Ah, who cares if those stinkin' ragheads get any liberty anyway, right?

http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/06/07/libertarians-against-iraqi-liberty/

Libertarians Against Iraqi Liberty?

by Dave Price

Glenn links Shannon Love’s critique of Steve Chapman’s piece on Iraq over at Reason, in which he calls for an Iraqi plebiscite on the continuation of a coalition military presence.  Chapman’s take is… well, a bit odd.

    In light of the improvement in security over the last year, you would expect most Iraqis to have a new appreciation for our efforts.
    …
    But that was not the prevailing sentiment last week among Sadr’s followers.

Yes, how strange the very people profiting from the violence and targeted in the the U.S. efforts to reduce violence oppose those efforts.  Does Chapman not know this, or is he deliberately being misleading? Maybe we should be charitable and assume he’s being ironic.

Chapman also cites the February poll of Iraqis in a similarly misleading or ill-informed fashion. He accurately quotes a portion about ”oppos[ing] foreign troops,” adding:

     Yet all indications are that Iraqis can unite behind only one proposition: Yankee, go home!

But he doesn’t link the poll, and perhaps for good reason: contrary to his assertion, the poll more relevantly finds only 38% want coalition forces to leave immediately (p4), down from 47% in August 2007.  And in fact that number is likely overstated, as the poll wildly oversamples Sunnnis (p44), who tend to be most opposed to coalition forces. (The survey puts them at 30%, while most estimates place them at 10-20%.) It’s also likely that number has continued to decline right along with the violence, as it did from Aug to Feb.

Maybe he’s just not familiar with all the details of the poll or maybe he’s cherrypicking, but I’m not betting on irony here.

It’s worth noting again too, even the smallest adjustment for the sectarian affiliation finds a majority of Iraqis believing the invasion was the right decision.

I’m also struck that a libertarian would be in favor of a result he believes is more likely lead to reduced liberty for Iraqis, even if that result was the based on the outcome of a democratic vote (libertarians above all others should understand democracy is often in conflict with liberty).  Unfortunately, for many libertarians the need to support liberty ends at our borders, and freeing the U.S. from outside commitments trumps whether 25 million people have some semblance of freedom.

But he’s probably wrong about how that vote would turn out.  So yes, absolutely let’s have a referendum of Iraqis on whether they want our help for another year. Let’s have Iraqis debate whether Iran and the militias or the U.S. really have their best interests at heart. And let’s raise the ante by having the result be binding on both Presidential candidates.

[Jack]

Well, if the point is that libertarians should be in favor of us staying in Iraq because we're bringing liberty to the Iraqis, I have to say it's a pretty weak argument.  To use an analogy, it's like saying that liberals should be in favor of us staying there because we're giving all sorts of money to poor people, and aren't liberals in favor of that?

[lester1/2jr]

lol.  so imperialism is libertarian because the new leaders we are throwing money at now have more liberty.  to spend it in paris during their frequent vacations.

[Brother Buzzard]

Well, if the point is that libertarians should be in favor of us staying in Iraq because we're bringing liberty to the Iraqis, I have to say it's a pretty weak argument.  To use an analogy, it's like saying that liberals should be in favor of us staying there because we're giving all sorts of money to poor people, and aren't liberals in favor of that?

Um, no, I don't think that was the point. Although now that you mention it, I think I remember hearing people talk that way back during Bill Clinton's Kosovo adventure. Some people--*cObamaugh*--might still talk that way about Darfur too.

The point, I believe, is that people such as Steve Chapman who believe a majority of Iraqis don't want us there are mistaken. Steve Chapman thinks a poll will reveal that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. His critics are all in favor of taking the poll because they believe it will prove the opposite. If they are right, politicians of any stripe can still make a case for leaving Iraq, but they won't be allowed to start from Chapman's premise that we aren't wanted there anyway and we're just honoring their right to decide things for themselves by leaving.

Obviously, that does hobble the case for leaving, since it makes every argument for withdrawal begin with "Yes, a majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave, but we should abandon Iraq anyway because [case that some national interest is more important made here]." On the other hand, this is the same argument as the ones for why we aren't going to Darfur or Zimbabwe: "Yes, they probably want us to come rescue them from their hellhole, but we're not going to because it's not in our nation's interest at this time."

That means if he still contends for withdrawal, Steve will have to find a more tactful way to say "To hell with the Iraqis!"

[Jack]

If it's all about a poll, I think it's little more than politicians looking to score a few debating points.  The issue, in my opinion, isn't about what people want, but what can realistically be achieved.  Can a stable, lasting government be created?  If so, how?  If the only answer they've got is for the US to occupy the place for eternity, then it doesn't make any difference if we leave now or ten years from now - it will go back to the way it was five minutes after we're gone.

Personally, I'd be more interested in a poll of the members of our armed services.  Do you guys want to keep going over there?  Do you feel like you're accomplishing anything?  They're the ones doing all the work and putting their lives on the line, being away from their families, etc.  If they're in favor of continuing, I say we support them.  If they say it's a lost cause, then let's quit wasting their time and their lives.  But that's just me.

[indianasmith]

That's also a very good point, Jack.  I have heard a lot of opinions from military guys, both in person and on the news, especially talk radio.  It seems to be overall in favor of remaining and finishing the job, but that being said, those thar are soured on Iraq are REALLY soured. They're a  minority, but a very vocal one.

[lester1/2jr]

I'm not particularly concerned with what iraqis want and not all that concerned with what our military wants either.  they're my tax dollars and I say end the thing

[indianasmith]

Lester, there are times you sound remarkably self-centered.  There is more to life than your personal economics!  If they weren't spending our tax dollars trying to make Iraq a better, more friendly place, they would just be spending them on another $2 billion dollar pork barrel project in Senator Robert Byrd's backyard!

You think they will ever give any of our money BACK???

[Brother Buzzard]

Lester, there are times you sound remarkably self-centered.  There is more to life than your personal economics!

Yes, well, he's still entitled to his Ayn Randian view, isn't he? I suspect a lot of our elected officials think the same way. It's too bad they aren't honest enough to come right out and say that as he does. Of course, if they did, they wouldn't be our elected officials very long, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

The part about the tax dollars is only partly true, though. Our soldiers are all voters and taxpayers, so those are their dollars and opinions that have to be taken into account too. Good luck persuading them they should abandon Iraq just to help fatten your bank account...

[lester1/2jr]

If they weren't spending our tax dollars trying to make Iraq a better, more friendly place, they would just be spending them on another $2 billion dollar pork barrel project in Senator Robert Byrd's backyard!

there wouldn't be terrorism at the barbeque,  it wouldn't create a massive liablity in the form of future veterans benefits,  incite further terrorism against us and make us less safe all things this war is doing.

Good luck persuading them they should abandon Iraq just to help fatten your bank account...

it's not up to them.  you seem to have no concept of what a republic is and what our constitution is about.

If I steal a thousand dollars from you and give it to a homeless person does that make what i did right?

there is nothing morally superior about wasting money and lives in Iraq to save face

[indianasmith]

Oh, I've perused the Constitution pretty frequently and have a pretty solid idea what constitutes a solid Republic.  Those soldiers all get to vote, too - and I imagine a great many of their votes will cancel out yours.

[Rev. Powell]

Good luck persuading them they should abandon Iraq just to help fatten your bank account...

it's not up to them.  you seem to have no concept of what a republic is and what our constitution is about.

A republic is a representative form of government, where the elected representatives of the people make decisions of national policy, including the decision to go to war.  They did so.  Presently there is not enough political pressure on the representatives to cause them to change their stance.

Actually I sometimes think it's libertarians who don't understand the concept of a republic.  They want a very strict reading of the Constitution and of principles of limited government to override the people's will to govern.  Granted those are important considerations but their needs to be balance.  The libertarian vision is not the vision of the founders of the American republic.  For example, they intended for the populace to be able to legislate morality to the community, subject to restrictions on invading certain inalienable natural rights.  

[lester1/2jr]

indiana-  than why did Ron Paul got the most donations from active duty military.  after all,  he's the only candidate on either side for immedeiate withdrawl from Iraq.

Paul: $286,764; 1349 donors
McCain: $79,597; 413 donors
Romney: $29,250; 140 donors
Huckabee: $24,562; 94 donors

Obama: $81,037; 466 donors
Clinton: $49,523; 181 donors

[Brother Buzzard]

indiana-  than why did Ron Paul got the most donations from active duty military.  after all,  he's the only candidate on either side for immedeiate withdrawl from Iraq.

He didn't:

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/05/do-the-troops-support-ron-paul/

The fallacy lies in the "active duty" part of that claim: Ron Paul's supporters conveniently ignored the difference between military employees and actual troops. They also ignored the difference between money and votes.

Do veterans and/or troops support Ron Paul? Looking at the numbers for veterans the answer is yes - in about the same numbers as in the general population, between three and five percent. But the bottom line is this: it is fallacious of the Ron Paul campaign to take these numbers and pronounce “the troops support Ron Paul”.

Also, Obama has been touting "immediate withdrawal" for a long time:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/12/br/br6275409318.html

He's fudging the truth about that just as Ron Paul is, of course. As with the "active duty" fallacy, the slippery definition of words such as "immediate" is where they get their wiggle room.

[lester1/2jr]

even according to that badly out of date article he still got more donations than any other repubilcan. they don't list democrats.

Candidate Open Secrets Ron Paul Campaign
Ron Paul $111,261 $249,000
John McCain 31,077 83,000
Mike Huckabee 24,535 37,000
Mitt Romney 8995 24,000

and the guy who wrote the article used his own criteria, namely people who put one of the branches of the military as "employer"

and fine,  if i take out "active duty" and just say "military"  he again wins handily.  veterans votes and opinions count the same as anyone elses.


plus:

It is against Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, plus specific military regulations for active duty military personnel to participate in partisan political activities. “The troops” do not support Ron Paul because to do so would be illegal.

so again, "active duty" is a bad choice of words but I'm not even sure of it's exact meaning






more to the point,  who cares about ron paul?  did you knwo the US military uses a billion dollars a month of oil?  and they have to buy it from kuwait.  waste