Why Libertarians Oppose War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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:

So you deny that the U.S. has killed any innocent civilians in its wars?

 

[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

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

Whether WW2 had to be fought is highly debatable.

 

[Tom Clancy]

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

Whether WW2 had to be fought is highly debatable.

Ok, you're obviously out of touch with reality.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Whether WW2 had to be fought is highly debatable.

Ok, you're obviously out of touch with reality.

Says the guy who can't see the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To Huebert's point, however, whether WW2 was necessary or not is irrelevant, because the fact that the U.S. government employed slavery to fight that war made it unjust.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Whether WW2 had to be fought is highly debatable.

Ok, you're obviously out of touch with reality.

Says the guy who can't see the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism.

Have you even see the book I posted?

It talks about both, and how it doesn't work out in the Real world..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, you're obviously out of touch with reality.

Says the guy who can't see the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism.

Have you even see the book I posted?

It talks about both, and how it doesn't work out in the Real world..

No, I haven't. Have you seen "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" by Ron Paul? Because it argues that interventionism is what doesn't work, and noninterventionism is the only logical path for a government to take in foreign affairs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, you're obviously out of touch with reality.

Says the guy who can't see the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism.

Have you even see the book I posted?

It talks about both, and how it doesn't work out in the Real world..

As for your book, the premise is ridiculous. "How Rome and America Changed the World." The Roman Empire collapsed under its own weight, just as every empire in history has done. Do we really want America to follow that path?

 

[The Rabbi]

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:

So you deny that the U.S. has killed any innocent civilians in its wars?

Do you see the difference between "throngs" and "any"? Can you be honest enough to admit the difference?
Can you point to any war waged where "innocent" people were not killed? Are you actually a pacifist, and not a narco-libertarian at all?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

So you deny that the U.S. has killed any innocent civilians in its wars?

Do you see the difference between "throngs" and "any"? Can you be honest enough to admit the difference?
Can you point to any war waged where "innocent" people were not killed? Are you actually a pacifist, and not a narco-libertarian at all?

I would say the U.S. has killed throngs of innocent civilians in most of its wars, and certainly the most modern ones. No, I can't, which is where the libertarian opposition to wars comes from, as Huebert points out in his article.

 

[JiggsCasey]

You wont find a single conservative on this site who has played the race card. Every instance comes from the Left.

I seriously doubt that.

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.

Of COURSE you guys don't openly SAY it. Your actions and opinions on domestic policy SCREAM it.

Like I said (and you most certainly didn't deny): The things you squawk about for Obama were the same "socialize losses/private gains" crap that the Boy King conducted, but back then you all pretended Ron Paul libertarians were some threat.

Cut the crap. Your hypocrisy is showing yet again.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Says the guy who can't see the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism.

Have you even see the book I posted?

It talks about both, and how it doesn't work out in the Real world..

As for your book, the premise is ridiculous. "How Rome and America Changed the World." The Roman Empire collapsed under its own weight, just as every empire in history has done. Do we really want America to follow that path?

Obviously you haven't bothered to find out the meaning..

It compares both America and Rome. Except he explains how America isn't doing what Rome failed to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

You wont find a single conservative on this site who has played the race card. Every instance comes from the Left.

I seriously doubt that.

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.

Of COURSE you guys don't openly SAY it. Your actions and opinions on domestic policy SCREAM it.

Like I said (and you most certainly didn't deny): The things you squawk about for Obama were the same "socialize losses/private gains" crap that the Boy King conducted, but back then you all pretended Ron Paul libertarians were some threat.

Cut the crap. Your hypocrisy is showing yet again.

I dont care whether you seriously doubt it or not. Put up evidence or STFU.

So now even though no one on the conservative side brings up race, we all do anyway. Maybe it's ESP?
Hypocrisy? No, that's you. You brought race into this thread. No one else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Conscripts were used from 1863 to 1865, 1917 to 1918, and 1940 to 1971. The ill was the draft in peacetime. That has not happened in almost forty years. Try again, KK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The Revolutionary War did not embrace conscription.

All you are saying as a libertarian that you feel no obligation to the social compact that gave you the opportunity to succeed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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:

So you deny that the U.S. has killed any innocent civilians in its wars?

Straw man, KK: move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Whether WW2 had to be fought is highly debatable.

Not by those who are educated, well read, and critically think.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I dont care whether you seriously doubt it or not. Put up evidence or STFU.

So now even though no one on the conservative side brings up race, we all do anyway. Maybe it's ESP?
Hypocrisy? No, that's you. You brought race into this thread. No one else.

LOL... Cons... the ideology of "prove it! ... so?... prove it MORE!"

There's a reason minorities don't vote republican. Your party is neck-deep in racism, from Nixon, to Lott, to Rush, to Reagan, to Boy King, and on and on and on and on....

Stop bullshitting the forum, fraud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, Rabbi, prove it more, you moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, because Isolationism works so well.

When has 'isolationism' not worked well, for the U. S.?