Do Libertarians Have a Death Wish?

[Mike Renzulli]

Vittorio Arrigoni is one more casualty in a morally bankrupt cause undertaken by hardcore leftists to defend terrorists and obstruct Israel’s ability to defend herself.

Upon volunteering to do so, Arrigoni was sent to Gaza by the International Socialist Movement (ISM). The ISM (which really stands for I Support Murderers) is the same group responsible for recruiting people such as Rachel Corrie and Angelo Frammartino. Arrigoni and Frammartino were murdered by Islamic jihadists while Corrie (despite the lies told by her apologists) died attempting to block the destruction of a tunnel entrance used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle weapons into Israel.

It should also be noted that on numerous occasions the ISM has had their facilities raided by Israeli authorities. This is mainly due to the group's ties to terrorist groups.

Regretfully, all three of these albeit naïve idealists are dead. Their lives wasted for a cause that embraced the very violence they abhorred so long as it was directed at Israel and not Gaza Palestinians. The worst part about it is that Corrie's parents and Arrigoni’s mother continue the work of their kids. Rachel Corrie's parents have gone so far as to initiate a lawsuit against the IDF ironically enough via Israel's court system. Vittorio Arrigoni's mother will travel to Gaza via one of the second Gaza Flotilla ships in May. Corrie and Arrigoni's parents are conducting themselves in true communist form. They obviously consider sacrifice (even of their own children) as their highest calling despite their well-to-do lifestyles and the true intentions of the people they staunchly defend.

A short time ago I had an exchange with a local Code Pink activist on Facebook. I borrowed from the logic of David Horowitz and asked this individual if she denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization. Her reply was only that she denounced violence and despite my pressing her numerous times on a discussion thread and emails she would not condemn Hamas.

In real life and cyberspace discussions I have had with libertarians (some of whom have worked with local leftist groups on certain activities), I am told that I have been brainwashed or am a victim of propaganda for defending Israel. Am I?

Let’s consider the actual words of the people some claim are the victims of Israeli oppression and that they so rigorously defend. Consider these quotes from the charter of Hamas:

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

And

[The Jews’] scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.

Then there is the Quran:

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8:55)

The unbelievers (i.e. non-Muslims) are your invenerate enemy. (48:29)

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 & 66:9)

Then there is Islam's prophet Muhammad:

I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’.

And

You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them hide will behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying: ‘O Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew jiding behind me; so kill him’.

Finally consider the wisdom of these prominent Muslim scholars:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. - ibn-Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar

The meaning of the term terror used by the media … is jihad for the sake of Allah. Jihad is the peak of Islam. Moreover, some of the clerics … see it as the sixth pillar of Islam. Jihad – whether Jihad of defense of Muslims and of Islamic lands such as Chechnya, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, or Jihad aimed at spreading the religion – is the pinnacle of terror, as far as the enemies of Allah are concerned. – Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi, October 6, 2001

And finally

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ Jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. – Abul Ala Maududi

Finally, let's not forget a 1991 memo published by the Muslim Brotherhood uncovered by the F.B.I. entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America which says:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Islamic scholar and Middle Eastern expert Bernard Lewis summed it up beautifully in his essay Communism and Islam about how the two ideologies are two sides of the same coin:

Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet! was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a responsive note.

Let me stress that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims. There are decent, secular Muslims (like Dr. Zudhi Jasser) who want to practice their religion peacefully, and do not wish to harm anyone. However, the facts not only about Islamist terrorism but also the Israeli-Gaza conflict, by and large, are facts libertarians seem to have largely ignored. Either out of a willful ignorance of the enemy we face or out of an intrinsic, subjective notion of being consistent for the sake of being consistent.

If anything the above quotes and the abundant of amount of evidence make it amply clear that the left is allied with Islamists soley to bring down Western civilization and not out of any high-minded, noble concern for the plight of the downtrodden, opposition to warfare, or out of any concern for our liberties. This and that the American Empire and the conspiracist mythology the left and some libertarians follow has been thoroughly debunked by the author should be ample reason for libertarians to disassociate themselves with leftists in their activities.

Those on the left who are allied with Islamists do so not only out of their hatred of capitalism (i.e. Western civlization) but also due to both ideologies wishing to subject the individual to the collective will. Libertarians allying themselves with leftists in general is a serious error in judgement and is not consistent with libertarian principles. What libertarians will be not remembered for is their principled defense of liberty but rather the company they keep exemplifying their intellectual daftness and useful idiocy for defending the very people who want them dead.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

This is extremely incoherent and non-objective. I have no idea what libertarians you are referring to, nor do I see that you've made a case that they have a "death wish." So you ran into a few people who didn't seem to be standing by a principle. Well what's new? Plenty of Americans are fine with the War on Drugs in spite of the insane violation of rights and human death that is caused by it. Do Americans have a death wish? Do they wish to be falsely accused and raided at 4am because some neighbor lied about them having marijuana, or because the police got the wrong address?

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay I would like to hear your thoughts on why it is. In terms of which libertarians I am refering to I thought I made it clear in the latter part of the article. Specifically, I am refering to the ones who ally themselves with Palestinians in the Gaza-Israel conflict. Many go so far as to borrow the logic of leftists, Hamas and other jihadist groups who are hostile to Israel and the Jews.

This is extremely incoherent and non-objective. I have no idea what libertarians you are referring to, nor do I see that you've made a case that they have a "death wish." So you ran into a few people who didn't seem to be standing by a principle. Well what's new? Plenty of Americans are fine with the War on Drugs in spite of the insane violation of rights and human death that is caused by it. Do Americans have a death wish? Do they wish to be falsely accused and raided at 4am because some neighbor lied about them having marijuana, or because the police got the wrong address?

Shayne

Edited April 21, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

I don't see how anyone can make the case for siding 100% with either side. You have to look at each action on its own terms and decide whether it was appropriate or not given the context, keeping the principle of individual rights as your guide in every case.

What libertarian wholeheartedly embraces one side's actions without judging them case by case? If you can make the case that someone's doing this, then you've just found a fool, but I wouldn't go so far as saying they have a "death wish."

Shayne

Okay I would like to hear your thoughts on why it is. In terms of which libertarians I am refering to I thought I made it clear in the latter part of the article. Specifically, I am refering to the ones who ally themselves with Palestinians in the Gaza-Israel conflict. Many go so far as to borrow the logic of Hamas and other jihadist groups who are hostile to Israel and the Jews.

This is extremely incoherent and non-objective. I have no idea what libertarians you are referring to, nor do I see that you've made a case that they have a "death wish." So you ran into a few people who didn't seem to be standing by a principle. Well what's new? Plenty of Americans are fine with the War on Drugs in spite of the insane violation of rights and human death that is caused by it. Do Americans have a death wish? Do they wish to be falsely accused and raided at 4am because some neighbor lied about them having marijuana, or because the police got the wrong address?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Glenn Beck has been talking about the alliance between the radical left and Islamists for months now--and presenting names, organizations, etc. People said he was nuts when he first started. A couple of weeks ago Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about a weird alliance between the radical left and Islamists in Europe.

Beck's view is similar to yours. Ideologically conflicting groups are currently joining forces to destroy the present order--most specifically, as much of capitalism as they can--and worry about the consequences later. They are all pretty much in agreement about destroying Israel, too. But each knows it will end up fighting the other if they succeed.

We are pretty much in agreement on the substance of this part.

I am very confused about your title, though. Like Shayne, I have no idea which libertarians you are talking about. Your title suggests all of them. The only clue I have is this statement from your opening post: "In real life and cyberspace discussions I have had with libertarians (some of whom have worked with local leftist groups on certain activities)..."

Quotes and names and so forth would be very useful if your title is to make any sense.

Also, in the title, you said you are replying to something. Are you referring to the title of a thread on another forum or an article or what?

From what I read, you could easily change the title, not mention libertarians at all, but instead something about the radical left and Islamist alliance, and it would make better sense.

If you really want the title to be the theme of your piece, I suggest you make a better case based on basic writing standards, starting with who, what, when, why, where and how.

When you lead with provocation to a generality, then don't back it up with specifics, it fizzles.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Glenn Beck has been talking about the alliance between the radical left and Islamists for months now--and presenting names, organizations, etc. People said he was nuts when he first started. A couple of weeks ago Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about a weird alliance between the radical left and Islamists in Europe.

Beck's view is similar to yours. Ideologically conflicting groups are currently joining forces to destroy the present order--most specifically, as much of capitalism as they can--and worry about the consequences later.

Israel is an example of "capitalism"? Is this some kind of joke?

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Israel is an example of "capitalism"? Is this some kind of joke?

Jeff,

Are you talking to me and addressing something I wrote?

Just wondering...

You quoted me, so it appears you are...

And I don't get the joke...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Israel is an example of "capitalism"? Is this some kind of joke?

JR

There are entrepreneurs in Israel. Many new hi-tech products originate there.

See:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2009-12-22-start-up-nation_N.htm

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 21, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[jriggenbach]

Israel is an example of "capitalism"? Is this some kind of joke?

Jeff,

Are you talking to me and addressing something I wrote?

Just wondering...

You quoted me, so it appears you are...

Michael

Yes, Michael, I was. But I now see my error. I had supposed that the second of your two short paragraphs quoted above was written on more or less the same subject as the paragraph that preceded it - that is, that we were still talking about the desperate need to defend Israel against the Satanic cabal of "leftists," "Islamists," and libertarians that is out to destroy it.

My apologies. In the future, I will never assume that, in any given paragraph of one of your posts, you are talking about the same subject you were addressing in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Humbly,

JR

Edited April 21, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Mike Renzulli]

The libertarians I am refering to are mainly of the anarchist strain. Many of the ones I have been in contact with locally and nationally do tend to side with the Gazans since they see the U.S.'s support of the American Empire (so-called). So in reaction to this, they will support the side in opposition to Israel. In this case the Palestinians. They also borrow somewhat about Ron Paul's assertion that Israel created Hamas which is not true at all.

One Phoenix libertarian in particular has befriended and conducted activities with said Code Pink activist and when I was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I also allied with many leftists who organized/participated in the Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice that I and a couple of other libertarians participated in as well.

There is also Antiwar.com which has not only detractors on the right but on the left too and (to the best of my knowledge) has had numerous leftists on their radio program. In 2008 the Future of Freedom Foundation had a conference that had libertarian and socialists in their speaker line up.

Mike,

Glenn Beck has been talking about the alliance between the radical left and Islamists for months now--and presenting names, organizations, etc. People said he was nuts when he first started. A couple of weeks ago Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about a weird alliance between the radical left and Islamists in Europe.

Beck's view is similar to yours. Ideologically conflicting groups are currently joining forces to destroy the present order--most specifically, as much of capitalism as they can--and worry about the consequences later. They are all pretty much in agreement about destroying Israel, too. But each knows it will end up fighting the other if they succeed.

We are pretty much in agreement on the substance of this part.

I am very confused about your title, though. Like Shayne, I have no idea which libertarians you are talking about. Your title suggests all of them. The only clue I have is this statement from your opening post: "In real life and cyberspace discussions I have had with libertarians (some of whom have worked with local leftist groups on certain activities)..."

Quotes and names and so forth would be very useful if your title is to make any sense.

Also, in the title, you said you are replying to something. Are you referring to the title of a thread on another forum or an article or what?

From what I read, you could easily change the title, not mention libertarians at all, but instead something about the radical left and Islamist alliance, and it would make better sense.

If you really want the title to be the theme of your piece, I suggest you make a better case based on basic writing standards, starting with who, what, when, why, where and how.

When you lead with provocation to a generality, then don't back it up with specifics, it fizzles.

Michael

Edited April 21, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, Michael, I was. But I now see my error. I had supposed that the second of your two short paragraphs quoted above was written on more or less the same subject as the paragraph that preceded it - that is, that we were still talking about the desperate need to defend Israel against the Satanic cabal of "leftists," "Islamists," and libertarians that is out to destroy it.

My apologies. In the future, I will never assume that, in any given paragraph of one of your posts, you are talking about the same subject you were addressing in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Jeff,

I'm the one who has to apologize.

I didn't realize the dastardly secret message of my words. After all, if you ever mention any observation at all from the prime minister of Israel--on any subject whatsoever, and especially within the proximity of the dreaded name Glenn Beck, you are obviously saying that the Israeli form of government is the beacon of capitalism and libertarianism.

I promise, I will try to study the English language a bit harder.

I think I've got the surface meanings in English down somewhat, but these hidden meanings are kicking my ass.

But I'm trying...

Thanks for the corrections...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I have a general idea of who you mean now, but your lack of presenting sources I can go to and see with my own eyes hurts your argument. You did cite a couple of organizations like antiwar.com and Future of Freedom Foundation, so that's something.

I don't have enough familiarity with FFF to comment, but I have visited antiwar.com a few times (very few, but a few).

I'm not a big fan of news aggregation sites, except, maybe Drudge, but that is the growing trend. I once in a while look at Glenn Beck's The Blaze, which is a kind of aggregation site called a "content curation" model. But the in-your-face bias almost forces me to spend little time there and search for other places to get information. On a personal basis, I don't think you should ever trust one source of news or opinion only--not in today's media world.

Antiwar.com does a very good job at both pure aggregation and curation. I am not a big fan of their approach, though, which is contra instead of pro. So I rarely visit them. Also, the few times I visited (including just now to be sure), I get the overall impression that the staff sees a neocon under every rock and, being a former drug addict, I avoid obsessive-compulsive environments.

My approach is different. For example, I stand with Israel, but in a Beckian sense. I cannot stand alongside of what I call the haters. (See the discussions in the Mid East section here on OL to see what I mean.) I also stand with peaceful Muslims, which any reader of this site should recognize, but I cannot stand with haters.

I have the same issue on other topics. For instance, I think the USA foreign policy has been fraught with many bad intentions. I use my brain when looking at obvious stuff and I have also seen the results with my own eyes up close. But I can't take a stand on this beside haters and constantly scapegoat people with jargon terms like "empire," "neocon" and so forth. For just one "neocon" example, I have it on record that I have managed to oppose the Patriot Act ever since I first read about it without having to do that.

To use an argument I used to say to Brazilians from my Brazilian days, if they believe USA multinationals are buying up their country and exerting undue influence in local policies, that is also because someone is selling--and it ain't Americans. In the same manner, I can't help but see stuff, and I see people who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions all too happy to fill their cars with gasoline from those efforts if the price is cheaper.

Interestingly enough, I recall saying over and over for as long as I remember that we should not be relying on the Middle East for oil and we need to stop doing business with those people. But, to be objective, I haven't really gotten deeply involved in the discussions. And I have been one of those who does fill my gas tank at the cheapest place without asking too many questions at the moment. I just don't pretend that it doesn't exist, though.

I remember, when I came back to the USA, looking on in horror at the war excesses preached by Objectivst hardliners, including a bogus argument that we should confiscate oil fields in other countries by force because the property rights of the oil companies were violated. And I look on at places like antiwar.com, see all the shouting and lopsided views typical of radical sites in the blogosphere, and get the same feeling. I think it's all beside the point. I'm just not for destroying things as my priority. I'm a builder.

I made a choice a while back and I doubt I will ever change. I don't go into issues where both sides are right and both sides are wrong to varying degrees, then take a stand of hatred against one of them. (And I can be quite competent--even ruthless--at defending myself if physically attacked, all without adopting hatred as a way of life.) I have learned the hard way that when you encounter people who do take such stands, they will usually end up hating you if you do not adopt their hatred.

I feel sad when that happens, but I'm not going to give in to intimidation.

My way of being is not easy when there is a lot of spiteful yelling. But what can I do? Let hatred take over the world?

Not me.

Michael

EDIT: About your title argument--whether libertarians have a death wish--of course they don't, not even the ones you mentioned. (Standing beside radical left-wing groups and preaching individual rights isn't the smartest thing I can think of, though.) I do think lots of people on all sides of all issues have a hate and destroy-someone-else wish. From what I have seen, that generally makes them blind to huge chunks of reality. I try to not let their hatred contaminate my own quality of life--and then I look at the issues.

[jriggenbach]

Standing beside radical left-wing groups and preaching individual rights isn't the smartest thing I can think of, though.

Is it any dumber than standing beside Republicans and other conservatives and preaching individual rights?

Just curious.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Standing beside radical left-wing groups and preaching individual rights isn't the smartest thing I can think of, though.

Is it any dumber than standing beside Republicans and other conservatives and preaching individual rights?

Just curious.

JR

The problem is the preaching. Many from both groups have become libertarians or Objectivists. Not many, i"d think, from preaching.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

In the same manner, I can't help but see stuff, and I see people who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions all too happy to fill their cars with gasoline from those efforts if the price is cheaper.

So, in other words, those of us who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions should just stop driving? Otherwise, we are being hypocrites?

Never mind the fact that most of our oil comes from either Mexico, Canada, or Venezuela. Never mind that Middle East countries are happy to sell us oil, since they have rather more than they can use themselves and since it is a primary source of their wealth, so that it is totally unnecessary to go to war and to occupy Middle East countries in order to insure that they sell it to us. Never mind that, even given the ridiculous premise that all Middle East oil producing countries decided to stop selling us oil, this would have essentially no impact on us, since oil is a fungible commodity that others could purchase from them and then resell to us. Never mind that the net effect of war is to destabilize these countries, raising the price of oil, as we've just seen with the oil price spikes after the U.S. military strikes on Libya. Never mind that the purpose of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East has nothing whatever to do with insuring our access to oil via the marketplace but is all about the U.S. government seizing political control of oil producing regions as a military/corporate objective.

Lets assume, for the sake or argument, that these military interventions really do increase our access to Middle East oil, lowering the price of gasoline for us. The question then becomes, how many Iraqis are you willing to see die so that we can have cheaper gasoline? How many dictatorships that enslave their own citizens but have governments friendly to the U.S. are you willing to support, so that we can have cheaper gasoline? How many nations are you willing to have live under permanent U.S. military occupation, so that we can have cheaper gasoline?

If this is the modern objectivist idea of egoism, bombing, occupying, and participating in the enslavement of foreigners so that we can buy cheap gasoline, then by this standard I am a proud altruist. I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gasoline than to support the U.S. government going to war with Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroying the lives of millions.

Martin

[sjw]

If this is the modern objectivist idea of egoism, bombing, occupying, and participating in the enslavement of foreigners so that we can buy cheap gasoline, then by this standard I am a proud altruist. I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gasoline than to support the U.S. government going to war with Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroying the lives of millions.

Martin

I read that the true cost when taking into account all the indirect help the government gives (via taxes) to oil companies is nearer to $15. Of course that was several years ago, it may be $20.

A key tragedy here is that the true economic costs of driving have been hidden from the consumer, which has radically warped decision-making regarding where to build homes and infrastructure, and if/when the true reality comes to bear, it's going to cause a huge amount of pain, pain that was totally unnecessary.

Shayne

[algernonsidney]

Is there any evidence out there that any libertarian has ever advocated giving any kind of money or weapons to Hamas or any other group that opposes Israel? I already know the answer to that one. The answer is no.

Libertarians are opposed to interventionism--period. To a civilized human being, it means that when Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy are fighting, anybody else should just let them fight. Bundy and Dahmer were both murderers, and there is no rational justification for taking the side of either person.

So, there it happens with Israel and its many enemies. The Crips and the Bloods are fighting. Both are murderers, and it is in my rational self-interest to stay out of it.

[algernonsidney]

weird alliance between the radical left and Islamists in Europe

It is quite weird. First and foremost, the radical left is extremely misandrist. Islamists are known to be extremely misogynist.

This is one thing that is forgotten by those of who desire a civilized society. The Islamic world will actually be an ally in the war on misandry. And misarndy definitely is a threat to civilization.

[Brant Gaede]

weird alliance between the radical left and Islamists in Europe

It is quite weird. First and foremost, the radical left is extremely misandrist. Islamists are known to be extremely misogynist.

This is one thing that is forgotten by those of who desire a civilized society. The Islamic world will actually be an ally in the war on misandry. And misarndy definitely is a threat to civilization.

Crap.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Standing beside radical left-wing groups and preaching individual rights isn't the smartest thing I can think of, though.

Is it any dumber than standing beside Republicans and other conservatives and preaching individual rights?

Just curious.

Jeff,

That would depend on whether you consider them comrades in arms to help destroy something or contenders for political office within the framework of a constitutional republic--with specific ones you work against based on their views on individual rights, big government, etc.

I think the comrades in arms option is really dumb--really, really, dumb--and the opponents within a constitutional republic option is taking the less of two evils in an election like, say, McCain versus Obama. In the first, you are standing beside them as moral equals. In the second, you act under protest to stay within the rules and are free to campaign against them in another election.

I see a hell of a lot of difference between someone like Ron Paul and his son standing beside their Republican colleagues in Congress, voting on legislation, and preaching individual rights, and standing beside something like Code Pink or Hamas and preaching individual rights (should the Pauls ever do so--and if they have, sorry for being uninformed as I don't follow this stuff).

I believe your real question--cutting to the essentials--should be "is it any dumber than preaching individual rights within a constitutional republic"?

Is that fair?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, in other words, those of us who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions should just stop driving? Otherwise, we are being hypocrites?

Martin,

Well...

When using the us-against-those moral scumbags tone of voice...

Yeah...

That's fair to say.

Unless you can come up with a source of gasoline not produced with blood in the pump. Then you can drive without being a hypocrite by your own standards.

(You asked...)

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

So, in other words, those of us who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions should just stop driving? Otherwise, we are being hypocrites?

Martin,

Well...

When using the us-against-those moral scumbags tone of voice...

Yeah...

That's fair to say.

Unless you can come up with a source of gasoline not produced with blood in the pump. Then you can drive without being a hypocrite by your own standards.

(You asked...)

Michael

My previous post was in response to the following statement that you made:

"In the same manner, I can't help but see stuff, and I see people who are opposed to USA Middle East military interventions all too happy to fill their cars with gasoline from those efforts if the price is cheaper."

In my post, I pointed out that these military interventions have absolutely nothing to do with making the price of gasoline cheaper. Just compare the price of gasoline before the Iraq war to the price of gasoline now, with the U.S. government fighting multiple wars around the world, and it becomes pretty obvious that all of these wars have not made gasoline prices cheaper. I also pointed out that the actual purpose of these multiple wars is to extend U.S. government geopolitical dominance over the globe. And I pointed out that, even if these multiple wars somehow resulted in cheaper gasoline for Americans, which they clearly don't, would this somehow provide a moral justification for them? If, hypothetically, these wars could be shown to lower gasoline prices, how many Iraqis should die so that we can buy cheaper gasoline? You did not respond to any of these substantive points.

You write "Unless you can come up with a source of gasoline not produced with blood in the pump". The only reason gasoline is produced with blood in the pump is the U.S. foreign policy of multiple wars associated with it, wars that contribute nothing to the actual production of oil or gasoline. Without these wars, oil would continue to be produced, sold to the U.S., and refined into gasoline, probably at a lower price than we are paying now.

So, am I being a hypocrite for buying gasoline for my car because there is blood unnecessarily associated with it, when I an opposed to all of these wars, especially given that I am probably paying more for gasoline as a result of these wars than I would otherwise, not to mention having to pay for the cost of the multiple wars? Or are objectivists hypocrites for claiming to be defenders of individual rights, then arguing that it is morally justifiable for the U.S. government to fight multiple wars which result in the deaths of untold tens of thousands of innocent people, just so that we can buy cheaper gasoline, which is not actually cheaper anyway?

Martin

[sjw]

"Trump: I'd Just Take Libyan Oil"

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In my post, I pointed out that these military interventions have absolutely nothing to do with making the price of gasoline cheaper.

Martin,

As far as I can tell, this is an opinion.

You want me to take it as fact?

I know a little, not much, but a tittle about the secondary oil market from having watched it up close. This was outside the USA, granted, but I was involved with real players.

What I have seen doesn't align with your opinion. Nor is it as simple as you are putting it. But essentially, the following is true--when the bribes flow and the dictators in oil countries are killing their folks with USA support, we get long stretches of pretty cheap and stable gasoline prices.

About whether Objectivist this or Objectivists that, I don't play that us-against-them game. I thought I have made that clear over several years posting online and running one of the most renegade outside-the-box sites on Objectivism on the Internet. Also, I am not a friend of Neocon policies like several prominent Objectivists are, and I have been open about my disagreements, so I have no reason to defend them.

Nor do I play the one wrong justifies another game.

Sorry.

I am of the same opinion as before for the reasons I gave.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Trump: I'd Just Take Libyan Oil"

Shayne,

He's a sweetheart, ain't he?

I don't believe he would do that, though. I think he is in "talk tough" mode like a wheeler-dealer negotiator before setting down to the table.

The more I learn about Trump's political ideas, the more I discard them as anything serious.

On the other hand, when I think that he has often used public money when he can get his mitts on it, and he uses things like bankruptcy as a "business tool" (his phrase, not mine), if he were elected and saw all that money from the US Treasury in front of him, I believe he would go nuts.

I can see it clearly. The term "greedy businessman" would take on levels of meaning undreamed of before.

Michael