Libertarians reject Ron Pauls anti-Iraq War views

[Thorgrim]

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

...

Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was "legal" cause to take military action against Saddam's regime--from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the "no fly" zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.




OpinionJournal - Featured Article

I thought this was something almost all libertarians agreed on...apparently I was wrong

[thomez]

there are probably less pro-Iraq war libertarians than pro-Iraq war Democrats

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

there are probably less pro-Iraq war libertarians than pro-Iraq war Democrats

percentage or quantity?

being a libertarian is an active thing, Zell Miller is a Democrat...we all know he isn't REALLY a democrat

You're comparing big parties to ideological movements

I'd say there are probably less pro-Iraq War progressives than pro-Iraq War libertarians

[Publius]

Congratulations, you've successfully pointed out that some libertarians have a different opinion on a subject from other libertarians. How 'bout that, libertarians are human too.

Does this thread have a point?

[thomez]

percentage

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

Congratulations, you've successfully pointed out that some libertarians have a different opinion on a subject from other libertarians. How 'bout that, libertarians are human too.

Does this thread have a point?

I think a huge outlook on foreign policy is more than some minor difference...it'd be like if socialists were debating if we should ever have universal healthcare...kind of a "taken for granted" thing

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

percentage

Well I still believe progressives < libertarians on pro-Iraq War, but we'd need a poll before either of us knew the facts of that

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think a huge outlook on foreign policy is more than some minor difference...it'd be like if socialists were debating if we should ever have universal healthcare...kind of a "taken for granted" thing

I never said it was only a minor difference. My point is that they are individuals and individuals often have different viewpoints than others that describe themselves the same way politically.

There are two major schools of thought on this subject within libertarianism, in much the same way there are two major schools of thought on abortion within libertarianism. People can hold the same ideals, but view them individually in a different way and come to a different, sometimes completely opposite, conclusion.

It's called human nature, and that has nothing to do with the core ideals of libertarianism. I'd be willing to bet there are actually a lot of socialists that don't agree with a government owned universal healthcare system, they just aren't extremely vocal about it (in much the same way the pro-war libertarians are much less vocal than the anti-war ones).

[Ardentfrost]

I don't see the point of pointing this out... pro-war libertarians have been around for a long time.

It's the same principle as Log Cabin Republicans. They obviously don't agree with the Republican stance on gay marriage, but they do on tax cuts and whatnot. I don't think anyone fits precisely into any party.

[Thorgrim]

Socialists, real socialists, believe there should be free-market universal healtcare as the ideal?

And Arden, Log Cabin Republican at their core believe in lower taxes etc, not gay rigths...they did not form LCR to advance gay rights

I thought a strong stance against long violent overseas occupations was a core principle

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Socialists, real socialists, believe there should be free-market universal healtcare as the ideal?

Now you're adding the caveat of "real" socialists ... Perhaps then libertarians, REAL libertarians, don't agree with the Iraq War and these guys just aren't real libertarians.

And Arden, Log Cabin Republican at their core believe in lower taxes etc, not gay rigths...they did not form LCR to advance gay rights

Actually the LCR work pretty damn hard within the Republican Party to try and sway their fellow GOP members away from anti-gay stances.

I thought a strong stance against long violent overseas occupations was a core principle

Well that is where you're wrong, when you boil it right down to the roots. Libertarians believe in non-interventionism except in cases where our way of life is directly threatened. I'd be willing to bet that some of these libertarians that are pro-Iraq war believe, rightly or wrongly, that the war is acceptable because Iraq was a threat to our way of life.

I disagree personally, as do the vast majority of libertarians, but if they truly believe that to be the case then they aren't necessarily breaching a core libertarian belief. Libertarians are not pacifists.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Publius

Well that is where you're wrong, when you boil it right down to the roots. Libertarians believe in non-interventionism except in cases where our way of life is directly threatened. I'd be willing to bet that some of these libertarians that are pro-Iraq war believe, rightly or wrongly, that the war is acceptable because Iraq was a threat to our way of life.

I disagree personally, as do the vast majority of libertarians, but if they truly believe that to be the case then they aren't necessarily breaching a core libertarian belief. Libertarians are not pacifists.

Yes, I would say what libertarians TRULY believe when you take away all the issues is that personal liberties need to be preserved. With abortion, some think that aborting the fetus is taking away it's liberties, others thing that disallowing it violates the mother's liberties. With immigration, some think that our liberties are in jeopardy if they come in, others think that the immigrants themselves have liberties guaranteed by our constitution (and you can also argue the economic points of letting them come in and not letting them come in). With war, as previously stated, if someone thinks our liberties are being threatened, then they would support it.

I think all libertarians aren't against war (pacifists), but war must be justified for all of them, even the ones pro-Iraq War.

[Thorgrim]

I wasn't talking about being a pacifist...I was talking about overseas occupations

[Ardentfrost]

Obviously some people in this nation don't see it as an occupation. They buy into the bs about us "taking the fight to them" and all that other crap they spew on Fox News. No party is immune (I guess unless there was a party ONLY comprised of pacifists )

[thomez]

current stance of Libertarians

The War in Iraq

Like most Americans, Libertarians are appalled by the actions of the terrorists on 9/11. However, it is important that we ask ourselves whether Osama bin Laden or the Iraqi people are our enemy.

There has been a great deal of controversy about so-called facts presented by the White House about the initial cause for military action in Iraq; it is time we look at some real facts. We are indeed nation building. We are playing policeman in a civil war. We have attacked and killed thousands of people in Iraq because of the actions of a terrorist from Saudi Arabia. We have chased non-existent weapons of mass destruction instead of the terrorists who killed nearly three thousand Americans on 9/11. We are creating more terrorists on a daily basis because of our intervention in Iraq. In short, we went after the wrong bad guys and are now stuck in the middle of someone else’s civil war.

While American public opinion has radically changed about our continued occupation in Iraq, the President wants to send a "surge" of troops to Iraq, while adding nearly 100,000 new members of our armed forces to the ranks. The Democrats don’t seem poised to do anything which will substantially change our presence in Iraq. It is time for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with the safety of our troops.

[Thorgrim]

Democrats don’t seem poised to do anything which will substantially change our presence in Iraq.

YouTube Video

[Ardentfrost]

I like the things he said. I still see no reason to think they'll be successful in doing anything about the War in Iraq until 2008 when I'm assuming there'll be enough anti-war people (due to polls and whatnot) in congress so that no one could prevent them from scaling back the war.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

percentage or quantity?

being a libertarian is an active thing, Zell Miller is a Democrat...we all know he isn't REALLY a democrat

You're comparing big parties to ideological movements

I'd say there are probably less pro-Iraq War progressives than pro-Iraq War libertarians

I would say they're not REALLY libertarians.

[Thorgrim]

Then looks like this thread was a raging success, we've established that some people think those aren't real libertarians, and other's who feel they are...

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Then looks like this thread was a raging success, we've established that some people think those aren't real libertarians, and other's who feel they are...

Dude, I've seen you criticize Democrats on not being Democrat enough. We're allowed to do the same thing with libertarians