|Right wing/Libertarian anti-war/anti-imperialism||OldEdScott|
Apr 2, 2003 9:10 AM
|And interesting site. Great foment on the Right over the neo-cons' imperialist war.
|Quote from that site:||OldEdScott|
Apr 2, 2003 9:13 AM
|"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."|
|problem is being pragmatic||DougSloan|
Apr 2, 2003 9:24 AM
|They make some great points, but acknowledge: "At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics.
I'd love to see a pure Libertarian government. It ain't gonna happen, though. I wish we'd pull troops from the entire planet and just post them on the borders. Not gonna happen.
If someone cares about playing the cards we are dealt, being pragmatic, then it's tough to pick some issue, like war, and isolate it and attack it from a purely ideological perspective, because there are so many other consequences from doing so (such as international trade, immigration, terrorism, etc.).
Are you a Libertarian now?
|I've spent the past couple of days surfing from||OldEdScott|
Apr 2, 2003 9:38 AM
|one conservative/right-wing/neo-con/paleo-con website to another, trying to get a better fix on where the 'opposition' stands on things. Reconnaissance, you might say.
As far as Libertarianism goes, I think we discussed it once: Like most liberals, I'm what could be called a 'social' libertarian. On social issues, I think the government needs to keep its nose out of my business. If I want to smoke pot and have sex with a male rhinoceros, that's my business, not Dick Cheney's. I part ways with Libertarians on economic and regulatory issues. But it's an attractive philosophy, all right.
|ok; we agree on half the issues, then||DougSloan|
Apr 2, 2003 9:44 AM
|Not sure you'll be ok with the animal rights people, though.
|Yeah, the PETA folks are sexually repressed. nm||OldEdScott|
Apr 2, 2003 9:48 AM
|Can't happen, OldEdScott not nearly kooky enough ;-)||js5280|
Apr 2, 2003 9:48 AM
|Actually I do support this war as a Libertarian but with some caveats, I will feel much better if our worst fears are confirmed about Saddam's capabilities and intentions. Libertarians do believe in war as self-defense and this just barely meets that critera for me. Unfortunately I think this became an issue because we got into GW1 (which I did not support on Libertarian principle) which created a very powerful enemy at least somewhat aligned with terrorists that are a credible domestic threat. Like I said, it's a bit of strech though and I think a excellent example how American do-gooder meddling actually puts us in greater danger in the long run. What I wish is that the anti-war prostestors would see that government run amuck on domestic issues is just as grotesque as government run amuck on international issues. The more power we give to our government, the more megalomaniacs we will see. Work is for chumps, if you want real money and power, be a politican.|
|I retract my statement. . .||js5280|
Apr 2, 2003 9:54 AM
|"smoke pot and have sex with a male rhinoceros"
Yep, he's plenty kooky enough.
|The Neo-Con Empire Strikes Back!||OldEdScott|
Apr 2, 2003 10:12 AM
|Whew! You guys on the Right are brutal on each other! Harder on each other than you are on us commies, even!