Libertarianism has lost its way. The philosophy of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and scores of others throughout time eternal, is being undermined. The Libertarian Defense Caucus seeks to return the philosophy of liberty back to the principles that have appealed to libertarians for centuries.
The Caucus adheres to the sacred tenants of classical liberalism; individualism, individual rights, spontaneous order, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, natural law, and the natural harmony of interests.
The Caucus holds that these principles of liberty are in harmony with the principle of a strong, robust, and dynamic armed forces. A strong volunteer armed forces being necessary to confront and defeat the threats to liberty presented by the global war on terrorism. Military action is always a policy of last resort. The Caucus holds that the policy of last resort should be the province of the United States government in defending the American people.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus believes that a global war on terrorism exists. Furthermore, the Caucus holds that the war on terrorism should be executed through diplomatic, economic, and only when absolutely necessary and proper, military means.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus seeks to reach out to like-minded individuals, societies, and nations in advancing the great cause of liberty. The Caucus holds that strengthening our alliances with democratic allies, and promoting political and economic freedom and reforms is necessary when in the vital and direct interest of United States, and her security.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus holds that only through preserving and protecting our security, our prosperity, and our cherished principles, can we advance the great cause of liberty and rightfully declare ourselves,
Libertarians.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus is the guardian of limited governance and liberty, wherever She finds herself under threat. The Libertarian Defense Caucus welcomes individuals who share these vital values. This Statement of Principles is a broad declaration of the core beliefs the members of the Caucus hold.
The Caucus does not endorse, nor align itself, with any one litmus test, doctrine, interest group or political party. The Libertarian Defense Caucus does not officially endorse political candidates or political parties. Individuals within the Caucus will of course express their own strongly held beliefs and endorsements within the Caucus of a particular political candidate or political party. These opinions of individual Caucus members are not to be seen as representative of the Libertarian Defense Caucus entire. It is the expressed desire of the Libertarian Defense Caucus to reach across political boundaries in the greater cause of liberty.
8 comments:
Slaying evil people is a public good. States can in theory efficiently provide public goods, whereas private enterprise tends to underprovide public goods.
Unfortunately, good government is also a public good, and so tends to be underprovided. The government is doing an extremely poor job of slaying our enemies.
Defeating a large scale evildoers is a public good - but large scale evil consists of many acts of small scale evil, and defeating each particular small scale evil act is a private good.
Before World War II, captains of ships generally had guns readily accessible, and merchant ships routinely carried heavy weapons. 9/11 could not have happened if the captains of planes generally carried guns.
It is the nature of Islam to impose dhimmitude on nonbelievers, without much regard for official state boundaries. “Dhimmitude” being a dangerously inferior status where one's property is insecure, and women are apt to be raped. Existing Muslim states no longer officially impose dhimmi status, but for the most part they impose unofficial dhimmi status, which is even more dangerous and precarious: Existing Muslim states often fail to prosecute crimes against infidels, and when crimes are prosecuted, penalties are slight.
The West has tried to confine dhimmitude inside a system of states – the Muslims can oppress their minorities inside Muslim state boundaries all they like, but cannot oppress outside Muslim state boundaries. This artificial boundary bends under pressure, creating the present conflict. In response to this threat, the American government engages in imperial state building – imposing on Muslims governments more acceptable to Americans.
The anarchic equivalent of the current policy of imperial state building would be to enter mutual defense arrangements with dhimmi, without regard to state boundaries.
Government offers advantages and disadvantages in defense. Its greatest disadvantage is that offers a target. Governments are hard to create, easy to destroy, as recent history has repeatedly demonstrated. Because government monopolizes defense capability, destroying the enemy government brings great advantage to the attacker. If you organize a government, you present your soft underbelly to a hostile foreign government, you give your enemy a single throat that he can cut.
If for example, America's enemies in Iraq were to organize a counter government, that would make things mighty easy for American troops. By organizing an Iraqi government, American troops have made things easy for their enemies.
The problem the Pentagon encountered in Iraq is, as we discovered during the cold war, that destroying governments is easy, upholding governments is hard. Containment (protecting non communist governments from communists) was bloody, expensive, and failed, failed with catastrophic consequences. Rollback (undermining communist governments) was cheap, easy, and wildly successful. In Iraq the world's mightiest superpower is disturbingly close to being defeated by numerous little underfunded and underarmed groups totalling perhaps twenty thousand men. The existence of an Iraqi government is not an advantage in defeating these enemies, but a profound and terrible disadvantage, a disadvantage demonstrated daily in blood.
I wish you were working in the Department of Defense, Mr. Donald. Your common sense approach, with an eye focused sharply back toward history, would be a bucket of cold water in their faces, to awaken them to the reality that victory in Iraq is achievable if a new course is charted that parts ways with our current, ineffectual policy of"propping" up a government that will not hold together.
Thanks for contributing your thoughts to the LDC.
James is right on. I had derived similar conclusions from a theoretical/etymological viewpoint, starting with the definition of "state" (as distinguished from a mere government).
This word is from the Latin,
and originally referred to:
www.dictionary.com
c.1225, "circumstances, temporary attributes of a person or thing, conditions," from L. status "manner of standing, position, condition," noun of action from pp. stem of stare "to stand" from PIE base *sta- "to stand" (see stet). Some M.E. senses are via O.Fr. estat (Fr. état; see estate)"
The modern definition of "state" is:
"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government"
The meaning of "state" evolved thusly:
"this sense grew out of the meaning 'condition of a country' with regard to government, prosperity, etc. (c.1290), from L. phrases such as status rei publicae"
Modern definitions of "state" include the people of an area, the government representing the area,
and the area itself.
A political state is a type of government that is closely associated with a certain territory (estate) and tries for a near-monopoly in it's territory.
Anti-interventionism is statist,
in the sense that it holds the borders of a state are inviolable. Thus, the US government may protect the rights of Americans, but only on US soil. Invading another country is considered analogous to violating the property rights of a private land owner.
Of course, modern terrorists tend to not be statists, because they routinely cross international borders to attack a government hostile to them. That does not mean they are absolutely anti-statist. Because obviously they exist in the time-space continuum and must occupy some territory in order to exist, train, and hide from pursuers. They also feed off the dying bodies of Islamic states like Saudia Arabia and Iran.
The US government is more statist, and tends to respect the Peace of Westphalia (wherein states agree to mutually respect borders). That's why the US invaded Iraq within it's political borders, instead of focusing on coastal areas of Iraq and Iran.
Subtracting the coastal area of Iraq, and Kurdistan, what is left consists of the areas of greatest conflict (in the Sunni Triangle and Sadr's territory).
By withdrawing from only the most troubled areas of Iraq, we create a power vacuum, drawing in Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian influence. Thus we would encourage our enemies to fight each other.
Rumsfeld's transformation of the military focuses on mobility. This is implictely anti-statist because crossing international borders is the full expression of mobility.
We need to attack the Iran government from the air, and by arming insurgents; and invade portions if necessary.
OPEN LETTER TO ANGELA KEATON, LNC REP AT LARGE:
Allow me to present a proposal that might satisfy all sides.
What I and many other libertarian hawks object to, is an increasing tendency to deny the possibility
that interventions abroad might be compatible with liberty. Extreme Rothbardians equate non-interventionism with non-aggression, and contend that "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron. This is not only a-historical, but without foundation in liberty theory.
LP press releases tend to reinforce this exclusionary
view, that would restrict the LP and the movement generaly to those who would oppose all interventions
abroad.
This is not at all how mainstream libertarian greats viewed the matter.
Mises, for example, considered "intervention" in the context of domestic legislation, and supported intervention as in WWII.
Rand was of two minds on the matter, and as she grew older, tended more and more to the hawk viewpoint. Have you read her address to the 1973 graduating class at West Point?
Her intellectual heirs at the Ayn Rand Institute are near the forefront of smart libertarian hawks; they specifically oppose altruistic occupations and the
neo-con democratic agenda. A while back, I went to a presentation to Seattle-area donors by Yaron Brooke; more people were there than at a typical LP state
convention.
The LRC was elected, and the platform mostly deleted, by rank and file members who were tired of a few self-styled radicals speaking for the whole movement.
Since then, little has changed. Delegates rightly feel cheated, and more have dropped out.
I realize that Iraq is a hot topic right now. It was also a hot topic during the invasion, which 80% of Americans supported. So, claiming
we must follow popular sentiments of the moment is a little disingenuous.
What happens after we withdraw precipitously from Iraq, and terrible consequences follow? Another large-scale terrorist attack on US soil, or a
holocaust in Iraq, would turn popular sentiment against libertarians.
I propose that the LNC (Libertarian National Committee of the LP) vote on a resolution dealing with Iraq. This resolution would not stake out a particular position on this war, but merely state that libertarians disagree on the matter, and a substantial percentage support military actions
abroad. Future LP press releases on Iraq should include this resolution as a disclaimer; something to the effect that a majority of LP officials feel
a certain way, but many libertarians disagree.
Please advise if you might be interested, and I would consult with Bruce and others to
word the resolution and clarify LP policy.
Thank you for adding that beautifully written piece from Mr. Bjornson, Kevin. I have reached out to Mr. Bjornson and offered the assistance of the LDC in his attempts to reform the LP and seize it back from the radicals. I believe his proposal strikes a fair balance for those libertarians, such as this writer, who fully support the war on terrorism, and the war in Iraq, and those Libertarians who are opposed. It is time for the radical elements of the LP to understand that libertarians disagree on this issue of such grave importance and I believe it is long past time for the party's foreign policy to reflect this reality. Libertarians can agree to disagree on the war on terrorism without resorting to name calling and attempts to expel persons they disagree with from the party. Such tactics seem, in my opinion, to be in conflict with the philosophy of liberty.
It is my hope that someday non-interventionist Libertarians can come to accept that many other libertarians feel differently and are still very much libertarians in every sense and meaning of the word. I will not join the LP until such reform takes hold.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed their thoughts, opinions, and feelings on this site. All of your perspectives are appreciated and respected. Thank you for your contributions to the Libertarian Defense Caucus.
If you would like to become a member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus:
Send your full name and any suggestions you may have to
rpchristiano@comcast.net
or to:
ericdondero@yahoo.com
or post your name here in this comment section. Any of those will do.
Thank you and welcome to the Libertarian Defense Caucus.
I wanted to take special note and thank Kevin for promoting the LDC on the official LP blog:
"For interesting discussions of foreign policy, please visit the Libertarian Defense Caucus weblog:
http://libertariandefensecaucus.blogspot.com/ ".
The members of the Caucus deeply appreciate the "plug".
A reminder to everyone, if you are interested in contributing articles or ideas for the LDC Official site please contact the Libertarian Defense Caucus at rpchristiano@comcast.net
The contributions can be from any point of view or political philosophy, and focus on domestic or international issues. The Editors of the LDC do reserve the expressed right to refuse a particular article proposal or edit certain elements as deemed necessary and proper.
Thank You.
Post a Comment