Why Libertarians Oppose War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription – legalized slavery – to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries' affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription – legalized slavery – to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries' affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

No, they oppose war because they are cowardly narcissistic simps lacking either good sense or compassion.
If the Founding Fathers had been narco-libertarians we'd still be kow towing to Queen Elizabeth.

 

[hipeter924]

Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription – legalized slavery – to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries' affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

No, they oppose war because they are cowardly narcissistic simps lacking either good sense or compassion.
If the Founding Fathers had been narco-libertarians we'd still be kow towing to Queen Elizabeth.

No, you would be living in Mexico.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Yeah, because Isolationism works so well.


Jesus, how many times have I had to say that over and over..


You might want to read this book, explains everything.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Trust-Built-America-Building/dp/0525950745[/ame]

which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft,

Isn't that what paying Taxes is all about? Are you sure he's not trying to make the Defense Budget seem horrible than anything else?

 

[Ringel05]

The total number of casualties in World War I, both military and civilian, were about 37 million: 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded.
WWI lasted 4 years.

World War II casualty statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million. The sources cited on this page document an estimated death toll in World War II of 62 to 78 million, making it the deadliest war ever. When scholarly sources differ on the number of deaths in a country, a range of war losses is given, in order to inform readers that the death toll is disputed. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.
WWII lasted 6 years

The Korean War dead: US: 36,940 killed; PVA: 100,000–1,500,000 killed; most estimate some 400,000 killed; KPA: 214,000–520,000; most estimate some 500,000. ROK: Civilian: some 245,000–415,000 killed; Total civilians killed some 1,500,000–3,000,000; most estimate some 2,000,000 killed.
Korea lasted 3 years.

The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. 58,226 American soldiers also died in the war or are missing in action. Australia lost almost 500 of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam and New Zealand lost 38 soldiers.
Vietnam lasted just over 8 years

As for both Iraq wars and Afghanistan estimates run from less than 500,000 to just over 1.5 million. This discrepancy is due primarily to different criteria for "war" deaths being applied for political, practical and organizational, agenda driven desires.
These wars have lasted 9 years.

It looks like as war gets more modern, casualties have decreased dramatically.
(If WWI had lasted 2 more years casualties could potentially have been comparable to WWII)

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and teh US has waged every conflict since Vietnam with volunteers, not conscripts.

Looks like the narco-libertarian arguments fall apart quickly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription – legalized slavery – to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries' affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

No, they oppose war because they are cowardly narcissistic simps lacking either good sense or compassion.
If the Founding Fathers had been narco-libertarians we'd still be kow towing to Queen Elizabeth.

Yes, it's compassionate to plunder your own citizens and restrict their freedoms all in the name of killing other people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

No, they oppose war because they are cowardly narcissistic simps lacking either good sense or compassion.
If the Founding Fathers had been narco-libertarians we'd still be kow towing to Queen Elizabeth.

Yes, it's compassionate to plunder your own citizens and restrict their freedoms all in the name of killing other people.

You mean other people who are determined to strip your life, liberty, and property? Those people?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, because Isolationism works so well.


Jesus, how many times have I had to say that over and over..


You might want to read this book, explains everything.

Amazon.com: Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America Is Building--a New World (9780525950745): Thomas F. Madden: Books

which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft,

Isn't that what paying Taxes is all about? Are you sure he's not trying to make the Defense Budget seem horrible than anything else?

And how many times do I have to say there is no libertarian that favors isolationism over noninterventionism?

No, I'm pretty sure he's trying to make taxation seem horrible. He just doesn't differentiate between spending on welfare programs vs. "defense" programs, and this article was about war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, and teh US has waged every conflict since Vietnam with volunteers, not conscripts.

Looks like the narco-libertarian arguments fall apart quickly.

No, the argument doesn't fall apart, as he said conscripts have historically been used by the U.S. He didn't say they're being used currently.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and teh US has waged every conflict since Vietnam with volunteers, not conscripts.

Looks like the narco-libertarian arguments fall apart quickly.

No, the argument doesn't fall apart, as he said conscripts have historically been used by the U.S. He didn't say they're being used currently.

"Historically" is not an argument for the reality of today, when no one, least of all the Pentagon, wants to go back to a draft.

Oh yeah, except the Democrats, who sponsor a bill to revive it all the time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, they oppose war because they are cowardly narcissistic simps lacking either good sense or compassion.
If the Founding Fathers had been narco-libertarians we'd still be kow towing to Queen Elizabeth.

Yes, it's compassionate to plunder your own citizens and restrict their freedoms all in the name of killing other people.

You mean other people who are determined to strip your life, liberty, and property? Those people?

Yes, those innocent civilians who seek to live in peace and want nothing at all to do with the U.S. or its enemies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, and teh US has waged every conflict since Vietnam with volunteers, not conscripts.

Looks like the narco-libertarian arguments fall apart quickly.

No, the argument doesn't fall apart, as he said conscripts have historically been used by the U.S. He didn't say they're being used currently.

"Historically" is not an argument for the reality of today, when no one, least of all the Pentagon, wants to go back to a draft.

Oh yeah, except the Democrats, who sponsor a bill to revive it all the time.

Historically is a perfect argument, as it shows that no wars the U.S. have been engaged in can be considered just. Even the "sacred cow" wars such as the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WW2 embraced conscription which is a form of slavery.

 

[JiggsCasey]

this thread looks like uber fail already... with situational ethics aplomb, and cons justifying both war and their libertarian hijack since the black man took their white house.

 

[The Rabbi]

this thread looks like uber fail already... with situational ethics aplomb, and cons justifying both war and their libertarian hijack since the black man took their white house.

Are you a racist? Are you bothered by Obama being black (or mixed or whatever he is)? Is that why you bring this up totally out of the blue?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, it's compassionate to plunder your own citizens and restrict their freedoms all in the name of killing other people.

You mean other people who are determined to strip your life, liberty, and property? Those people?

Yes, those innocent civilians who seek to live in peace and want nothing at all to do with the U.S. or its enemies.

Throngs of innocent civilians wanting to live in peace and wanting nothing to do with the US or its enemies:

 

[JiggsCasey]

this thread looks like uber fail already... with situational ethics aplomb, and cons justifying both war and their libertarian hijack since the black man took their white house.

Are you a racist? Are you bothered by Obama being black (or mixed or whatever he is)? Is that why you bring this up totally out of the blue?

Not in the least, o' great king of irony. ... That would be your camp, as evidenced nearly every day with your situational ethics and faux outrage over all things Obama.

You know, the stuff you all blow a gasket over regarding the same kinds of crimes the white guy before him was guilty of. ... But of course, he got a free pass in your side's view.

Anyhow, you "drill baby drill" Sara Palin types can't simultaneously hold a pro-imperialism, pro-pre-emptive invasion view while hijacking the libertarian movement. It just doesn't wash. Go find a new name for your movement. I dunno.... The Rapture party.

 

[The Rabbi]

this thread looks like uber fail already... with situational ethics aplomb, and cons justifying both war and their libertarian hijack since the black man took their white house.

Are you a racist? Are you bothered by Obama being black (or mixed or whatever he is)? Is that why you bring this up totally out of the blue?

Not in the least, o' great king of irony. ... That would be your camp, as evidenced nearly every day with your situational ethics and faux outrage over all things Obama.

You know, the stuff you all blow a gasket over regarding the same kinds of crimes the white guy before him was guilty of. ... But of course, he got a free pass in your side's view.

Anyhow, you "drill baby drill" Sara Palin types can't simultaneously hold a pro-imperialism, pro-pre-emptive invasion view while hijacking the libertarian movement. It just doesn't wash. Go find a new name for your movement. I dunno.... The Rapture party.

You wont find a single conservative on this site who has played the race card. Every instance comes from the Left.
Did anyone bring up his race on this very thread? Why, yes. YOU did. YOU must be the racist here. The rest of us couldn't care less--our opposition to Obama is because he's worthless and his policies suck.

 

[rikules]

Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force – a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription – legalized slavery – to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries' affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.

Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert

I imagine most sane and rational people would oppose "war"

however

sometimes

wars MUST be fought

sometimes war is a necessity


WWII HAD to be fought!

else germany and japan would have invaded us and there STILL would have been war.

one might argue that we needn't get involved in korea or vietnam....

or one might argue that we should always come to the aid of our "friends"
especially against agressive forces who would slaughter millions of innocent people

 

[rikules]

Are you a racist? Are you bothered by Obama being black (or mixed or whatever he is)? Is that why you bring this up totally out of the blue?

Not in the least, o' great king of irony. ... That would be your camp, as evidenced nearly every day with your situational ethics and faux outrage over all things Obama.

You know, the stuff you all blow a gasket over regarding the same kinds of crimes the white guy before him was guilty of. ... But of course, he got a free pass in your side's view.

Anyhow, you "drill baby drill" Sara Palin types can't simultaneously hold a pro-imperialism, pro-pre-emptive invasion view while hijacking the libertarian movement. It just doesn't wash. Go find a new name for your movement. I dunno.... The Rapture party.

You wont find a single conservative on this site who has played the race card. Every instance comes from the Left.
Did anyone bring up his race on this very thread? Why, yes. YOU did. YOU must be the racist here. The rest of us couldn't care less--our opposition to Obama is because he's worthless and his policies suck.

my daughter
who lives in charlston s.c.
has reported numerous incidents in which tea party members have approached her, sometimes in her office but usually on the streets,
and asked her some variation of the question "you don't support that NIG-ER, do you?"

I guess when tea party conservatives call obama a "nig-er" that is NOT racist...?