These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Noone Expects The Antiwar Inquisition

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm

The only way that Root’s book can be the top-ranked Libertarian book on Amazon is if “Liberterian book” is strictly defined as “book written by Root.”

Demonstrably false. A different — and non non-silly — way is if “Libertarian book” is defined as “general-audience political book by an author for whom his most recent candidacy was as a Libertarian”.

It’s always amusing when the urge to say something one thinks is clever overwhelms the recognition that the statement is obviously false.

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Trent, I too wish the libertarian/Libertarian distinction were not such a sharp one. Indeed, most of my political activism is in effect aimed at reducing and someday eliminating that distinction.

But we’re nowhere near there yet.

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Gene, I’m not pro-war. Please don’t call me such a name — unless you are a pacifist who opposes all war under any circumstances.

I’ve defended libervention before, but I don’t bring up the subject unless somebody else does first. And I’ve never advocated that the LP adopt my position on libervention.

Anarchists have more “prominence” in the LP than liberventionists do. Should libertarians who disagree with anarchism “rethink their loyalty” to the LP?

There are too many schisms over which principled libertarians seem ready to quit — or split — the LP: anti-war vs. libervention, anarchism vs. minarchism, pro-choice vs. pro-life, open borders, etc. If we freedom-lovers can’t hang together, we will surely hang separately.

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 4:56 pm

“Invade, occupy, and kill” is not liberventionism. If you want to argue against something other than the voices in your head, try this.

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Ah, yet another libertarian discussion hijacked by the Antiwar Inquisition. Unlike Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition, this kind is always expected. :-)

Gene, I too oppose the killing of even one innocent person “by aggression”.

If you can’t find or produce an answer to my essay, then the standard way I invite people to register disagreement with it is to have them tell us: The U.S. military should never be used to depose a genocidal totalitarian WMD-using ballistic-missile-firing neighbor-annexing terrorist-funding sadistic maniac who defiantly persists in what the Security Council declares to be ‘material breach’ of his agreement to be inspected for cessation of his admitted earlier secret WMD programme.

And if you don’t feel foolish doing so, you may append the qualification: unless the U.S. military can do so while guaranteeing that not a single innocent person will be killed as a result.

The bottom line here is that, unless you can assert the grammatical negation of some statement I defend, then you are not disagreeing with me, but instead are disagreeing with voices in your head. Please do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually say, instead of with what you wish I would say.

You in fact seem to have a pretty good memory for at least some of the things I’ve said. Above you appear to refer to a 2005 posting from the Yahoo 360 incarnation of Knowing Humans, before I moved it to Blogger (before 360 got shut down). I’ve now resurrected that posting here. I stand by what it says there, but I’ve also long since admitted my Iraq mistake.

P.S. What other prominent California Libertarians have been denounced as heretics before the Antiwar Inquisition? I can only think of one member of the LPCA leadership who I would suspect of ever having defended libervention.

Brian Holtz // Dec 19, 2009 at 10:30 pm

The claim that America asked Iraq to invade Iran is only a little less silly than the claim that Israel satisfies all the criteria above.

I’m still waiting for your “refutation”, Steve. Is the single word “neocon” supposed to be it?


Brian Holtz // Dec 20, 2009 at 12:49 am

Gene, please re-read the conditions. The two WMD-related ones were:

* has used WMDs before
* was defiantly persisting in what the Security Council declared to be ‘material breach’ of his agreement to be inspected for cessation of his admitted earlier secret WMD programme

If you want to disagree with either of those two claims, then try cutting and pasting them while inserting a “not” at the relevant spot. It will save us a lot of time. In fact, if you dispute either of these historical claims, then I’m happy to rest my case, and let readers apply their own understanding of the historical record.