by Eric DonderoWhat a reversal. Freedom is breaking out across Iran. We are witnessing one of the most historical events of our lifetimes, comparable no doubt to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet, Libertarians, outside of this political news blog, Atlas Shrugs, the Libertarian Defense Caucus, and a few other libertarian Republicans, are for the most part silent.
Virtually no reportage at Reason. In the last week, just two articles on the whole Iranian Revolution at Reason, and one was more of a criticism of how CNN was covering the event, than coverage of the event itself. Cato is similarly unengaged.
The usual suspects on the Libertarian Left, LewRockwell.com, Justin Raimondo and AntiWar.com, and the Ron Paulists, are preaching the same "stay the hell out" line, they've been arguing for years. Some are even cheering on Obama for not making any statements seemingly in support of the protesters.
Incredibly, not a single press release has been sent out by the Libertarian Party on the biggest issue of the day.
So, where are all the freedoms lovers in the United States to be found?
On the Conservative Right.
Conservative Pence more of a Libertarian than Paul?
Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana was the author of the House resolution in support of the protesters. Pence is generally regarded as a staunch Conservative.
And in an irony of all ironies, Ron Paul, often labeled a "libertarian," cast the lone vote against Pence's resolution, saying: "I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran."
(Scratching head)
Just who is the libertarian again? Pence or Paul??
The Conservative Blogosphere is way ahead of everyone else in championing the Iranian Freedom Fighter cause: HotAir.com, Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Ace, RedState, Jawa, World Net Daily, TownHall, Human Events, and so many others, are providing the best, and most supportive coverage.
Even Mike Huckabee is getting into the action. This from Huck Blog:
Where's the International Libertarian effort?
The libertarian movement was far more supportive of the last major freedom revolution: the Fall of Communism across Eastern Europe and Russia. Cato even sent a delegation of Economists, and other Cato leaders to Moscow in 1991 to steer the country into developing a more market-based economy.
No such plans are in the works for the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution.
In fact, even so-called Libertarian International groups who are supposed to be actively organizing such efforts, are silent.
ISIL (Individual Society for Individual Liberty), a group that was supposed to act as a sort of Libertarian International, has only one single link on their home page about Iran. Instead, articles about the upcomming Libertarian National Committee meeting, "Liberty English Camps," and ironically, Human Rights Watch with no mention of Iran, is currently on the front page. This from an organization that boasts:
A vital part of spreading the ideas of liberty around the world is to make available literature in the local language. ISIL has sponsored the publishing and distribution of thousands of introductory libertarian books in former communist countries, including the works of Ayn Rand in her native Russia.Funny. You'd think this would be precisely the time that the Iranians need the works of Rand, and free market economic books the most.
Something is seriously, seriously wrong, when someone like Huckabee, who has expressed utter disdain for movement libertarians in the past, is sounding more libertarian, than movement libertarians themselves.
Who knows? Maybe it will be social conservative Mike Huckabee next, doing a "Money Bomb" off his site to support the distribution of (atheist) And Rand's "Atlas Shrugs," Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," and Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," to the brave young Iranian protesters? While Ron Paul will still be saying that the press reports out of Iran about repression of the freedom fighters shouldn't necessarily be believed.
79 comments:
"comparable no doubt to the fall of the Berlin Wall."
///////////////
Yet we build walls now on our southern border.
Eric,
You write:
"ISIL (Individual Society for Individual Liberty), a group that was supposed to act as a sort of Libertarian International, has only one single link on their home page about Iran."
ISIL's home page isn't updated very often. In the right sidebar, the top five daily news and commentary headlines from its newsletter, Freedom News Daily, change daily (and automatically), but other than that, it often goes for weeks or months without change. It is not a news page.
In today's edition of Freedom News Daily, the top news story is on the suppression of protests in Iran by the Revolutionary Guards, and at least seven of the linked commentaries are on Iran. Among those commentaries is at least one pro-intervention piece ("The July 12th Revolution" by Reuel Marc Gerecht, from the Weekly Standard).
In yesterday's edition, the top news story was on Mousavi calling for more protests, and nine of the day's commentaries were on the subject, including at least one pro-interventionist piece by Peter Namtvedt, accusing Obama of "appeasement."
The edition before that, last Friday? Top news story: "Iranians await Khamenei speech after vote protests." Commentaries on Iran: Based on title, at least three, maybe more.
That newsletter goes out under both ISIL's brand and the Rational Review News Digest brand to about 5,000 email/bulletin subscribers, 2,000 Twitter followers and 2,000+ web readers each day. I'm its publisher, and I'm raising the bullshit flag on your claim that we're not covering Iran.
Yeah, and that's the problem Tom. It should be updated, particularly in a major world crisis like this.
I was there when ISIL was born. I was friends with Don Ernsberger and Dave Walters when they launched the group. I remember precisely what the purpose of ISIL was supposed to be.
Neither Ernsberger nor Walters is involved in politics any more. But I bet if they're asked, they'd say they were utterly ashamed of what the organization has become: A Nothing Group, that can't even take a stance in this momentous World Event happening in Iran.
What a huge dissapointment.
Anybody involved with that group ought to be fired, as in right now! And quite frankly, I don't give a fuck if they're volunteers either. Fire their useless asses!!!
Oh, and two more things:
- Yes, Iran needs libertarian involvement. That's why ISIL backed publication of a Farsi edition of the free-market economics book _Jonathan Gullible_, and why I wrote to ISIL president James Elwood last weeking urging a speedy translation of the "Philosophy of Freedom" video into Farsi.
- You're always out front to accuse KN@PPSTER of silence on whatever story it is you're all over at the moment ... so why did it take LR 48 hours longer than it took KN@PPSTER to cover the murder of Neda?
What's libertarian about wanting to meddle in someones business? What's libertarian about invading other countries? What's libertarian about mass murder?
If you were my neighbor and I overheard you arguing with your wife, should I dial 911 and request a SWAT team?
You are a sick shill, nothing more. What's in it for you? Getting your jollies off at 0300 hours watching live SATCOM feeds of death, destruction and mayhem?
Eric,
"I was there when ISIL was born."
Highly unlikely. You can pull seniority all you like, but I doubt that you were involved in libertarian politics in 1969.
"It should be updated, particularly in a major world crisis like this."
It is updated daily, a minimum of five days a week. The front page is updated with "top five" news headlines in the right column, and the news page gets entirely new content every day (usually 50-75 stories).
If you have formatting suggestions, feel free to make them. The idea that ISIL isn't covering the situation and updating that coverage regularly, however, is simply false.
Great piece Eric. I've posted it in part on my blog with a link back.
Tom, wait a fuckin' second!!! Did I mention Knappster in the piece? Did I criticize Knappster for lack of coverage on Iran?
NO!
In fact, I give you credit, I give Liberty Papers credit, and oddly I give The Agitator credit for being virtually the only libertarian blogs covering Iran right now.
If you'd like me to put that in an Addendum to the main piece on the front page, I shall do so.
Eric - The Editor
Tom, you seriously, seriously have to question Reason's lack of coverage? Cato? LP?
C'mon. Even you have to admit that they are COMPLETELY AWOL on Iran.
What in the fuck is going through their heads right now???
I can understand the Paulists, Rockwell, AntiWar.com, and their ilk. They have an agenda; one that's basically Pro-Achmadinajad, and anti-Freedom.
But Cato???????
Thanks a bunch Libertarian Advocate!
You've got a great site. I ought to link to it. Please remind me.
Eric, where were you and Republican candidates to condemn Daniel Pipes, who spoke at the Heritage Foundation two days before the election and said he is rooting for Ahmadjinadjad to win. The same with the Israeli foreign minister as well as the ehad of Mossad, Meir Dagan? No post about this.
Have you ever heard or seen Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Doug Bandow, Justin Raimondo etc. root for Ahmadjinadad? NOOOOO
BTW: Huckabee got it wrong about who the real supreme leader in Iran is, so if he does not even understand their politics, how can he make any statement about their elections. Is there any evidence that there was fraud in the election to be investigated? No The margin of win was very huge, just like in 2005. McCain also got it totally wrong about Reagan and Iran, Reagan was not even president, so if a senior senator cannot even get his facts straight, heaven knows what would have happened if he were president.
If Huckabee really cared so much about the Iranians, why didn't he denounce pres. Bush (with neocon speechwriter David Frum) description of Iran as being part of the so called "axis of evil"? There were NO differentiation between the govt. and the people in that speech and they still remember 1953....and are fiercely nationalistic.
Do you think American military intervention would have prevented Neda from dying> Then you are clearly fooling yourself. As a matter of fact, US military intervention will lead to many more young people like Neda losing their lives.
Eric,
"Tom, you seriously, seriously have to question Reason's lack of coverage? Cato? LP?
"C'mon. Even you have to admit that they are COMPLETELY AWOL on Iran."
Yes, the LP is AWOL. The LP is almost always AWOL on foreign policy, because the folks at LPHQ tend to either disagree with the party's non-interventionist platform and not want to publicize it, or else they're deathly afraid of pissing off the LP's interventionist minority.
Reason has at least one front-page story on Iran at the moment, and in the sidebar there's at least one current blog entry. Cato has one front-page commentary on Iran. Not as much as I'd like to see by any means.
I disagree with you that this is likely to become a "Berlin Wall" moment. More likely it will turn into a "Tiananmen" moment. I agree with you that it deserves more attention from libertarian sources than it's getting, though.
CATO's Leon Hadar and Doug Bandow have all written about the protests in Iran as well, so much for Eric's research, e.g. his false accusations.
Knapp: I think you summed it up correctly, it may turn out more like Tiananmen than the Berlin Wall. Remember also the Berlin wall was peaceful. Hopefully it could be something "in between" meaning that the current regime though they may survive - will be weakened and it may get the attention of those who supported him to eventually turn against him. Such a revolution would have a stronger chance of success if it leads to a gradual process of mobilization. If they want an overthrow of the govt, ain't gonna happen and will be counterproductive. A revolution can only be successful if the demonstrating minority can grow into the majority.
The basic stats is that about 1/3 of the population has internet access, about the same support for Mossavi, e.g. more the richer people, but the poor people voted for the incumbent and are still the majority. So they will have to eventually persuade enough of the poor people. Mossavi does not necessarily have the ideal history, maybe they need a younger leader or a leader that was not so involved in killings in the past. They need a really intelligent leader like Turkey's Attaturk.
Essentially Iran is a theocracy, e.g. the same as Huckabee's aspiration for the US.
Tom, you may be right? I have no clue how this is all going to turn out. Could be Tianaman II for sure. But then again, it could go the other way.
In that case, we will as a movement want to look back and say, we didn't lend our support to the Freedom Fighters?
I think not.
At the very least, we Pro-Defense Libertarians will be able to say that we gave them our support. You Lefty Libertarians won't be able to say jackshit. And if you try, I'll be right there to shoot you down.
I've got a very, very long memory.
Eric,
You write:
"[will we] as a movement want to look back and say, we didn't lend our support to the Freedom Fighters? I think not."
I think not as well.
Don't forget the idiotic and deceitful things paul said about Iran during the election.
Off the top of my head, he claimed the US would create a "Gulf of Tonkin" to pave way for a War against Iran(i.e. Fearmongering)
He claimed Iran had no military or way to actually bomb another country(a Lie), and that all talk of them getting a Nuke and the need to stop it was hogwash....
Copied by Obama, he first said: "Iran is a tiny country"
Then of course there is reality
There is no evidence at all that these "Freedom" marchers in any way believe in freedom as we see it. They are protesting, but for what? Maybe they want to stop the stoning of women . . . and maybe they don't. Maybe the protests are 80% related to the economic problems and if the economy was fine they would be happy to support the government. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Plus it is an internal matter.
the level of Freedom they have in Iran will affect our Freedom in the USA.
If the current regime were to ever nuke Israel, or even gain the weapon, its a whole new ballgame. Think about what happens when the US pulls out of the Persian Gulf and the Iranians decide to cut off the Strait of Hormuz and any commerce from entering except when they choose to let it.
If they nuke Israel or worse, all the moderate Muslims will rally to the strong arm of Islam which would really drive the world into chaos.
Also the current regime funds Terrorism, groups like Hezzbollah and Hamas around the world, not to mention they are responsible for many of the deaths in Iraq
Eric, I think Perez HIlton can take the mantle of the left-libertarian absolutist princple of "Non-Initation of Force"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRof0BI0K7A&feature=player_embedded
hilarious
I have found this quite often from the Paulistinians... scratch them on something like Iran or worse Israel. Then all pretenses of being "libertarian" are lost and if you are lucky you get a rant about Jews, as I did recently, for good measure.
"Also the current regime funds Terrorism, groups like Hezzbollah and Hamas around the world, not to mention they are responsible for many of the deaths in Iraq"
/////////////
Wow, you've just hit all of the talking points on FAUX NEWS! hahahahahaha.... The CIA's mouth piece....haaaahahahahahha
Gary,
You are right. I haven't seen any evidence that supports this idea that these protests are occurring because Mousavi's supporters think that he represents Western ideas about freedom or liberty. Meanwhile we have all of these Americans who are assuming that, if the protesters are against Ahmedinajad, then they be fighting for freedom.
It's not all about 'Jews' my friend. Millions of Americans that call themselves 'Christians' believe that what we are doing right now in the middle east is 'God's will'. And 'Jesus' will return to take the throne because we're paving the way for him, militarily...and they'll get into heaven because of it...Holy crap!
And apparently, many of the posters on this site agree with that.
I know a few folks from when I was over in the sandbox that explained it just that way...just like my crazy assed 'mom' used to do...just like the 'crusaders' did...etc...
Exactly!
What if he's another fucking monster! Maybe a bigger boogeyman than what we've already got running that country...maybe he's the guy all these conservative assholes want in charge so we can really get the butt kicking in gear!
http://www.infowars.com/mousavi-was-the-butcher-of-beirut/
I know Mike Suckabee's ready to bring Christ back to earth...
The shear vanity of humans clearing a 'landing zone' for God himself...is...is...fucking mind boggling!!! bwaaaahhhahahhaa
Like the creator of the universe needs GCA help finding 'over landing threshold'....roflol
If I get no response on my arguments from the "opposite" sides on this site, then I know I am winning and they do not want to acknowledge the inconsistencies that are being pointed out.
An Iranian Nobelprize winner for peace who sides more with the opposition has also confirmed that non-intervention is the right strategy.
The first Persian state surfaced about 625 BC. That is over 2,600 years ago. It is aggogant in the extreme for the fairly new Western nations to lecture an ancient civilization on how to set up their government and culture.
Western politicians using money and/or military might to tell other nations what to do are simply Imperialist.
Our government is a nightmare. Would we like it if Japan and China used their money and power to force us to adopt a system that they like?
Gary: exactly! Iraq - the region, not political country - also has a long history.
Imagine yourself Iraqi's having mobile phones or digital cameras, shooting pictures of innocent families of American and British military killing them gruesomely (e.g. suspecting they could be Saddam Hussein or his family or members of the Baath party) and publishing that on youtube (youtube did not exist then yet). Would there have been any outrage by Eric & Co?????
Would that lead him to call for troop withdrawal and an immediate stop to the invasion of Iraq???
I am sure Al Arabia, Al Jazeera etc. showed much more of the war violence than CNN, ABC, etc.
If they want to use a western system, Moussavi should go to the Hague for crimes against humanity, murder of 30 000 Iranians. And what about the US support for Saddam Hussein with his chemical war against Iran? Where did he get the chemical weapons from, US or USSR, and the weapons? The Iranians may well know where the weapons originated......
Message from green revolutionaries:
"Please tell your governments that if they are seen as interfering or supporting our actions - then we have lost! "
http://anoniran.blogspot.com/2009/06/message-to-international-community-from.html
Radio America interview on Iran with Ron Paul and others:
http://www.radioamerica.org/POD_dwp.htm
"Our government is a nightmare. Would we like it if Japan and China used their money and power to force us to adopt a system that they like?"
/////////
Correct sir.
Think of the power they will wield once they wipe their hands of the U.S. dollar. They will feel some internal pains for a few years, but once the smoke clears, they will be in a much stronger position for positive growth (with their current manufacturing base). The U.S. industrial base is gone. We must return to actually producing products rather than relying solely on the service industry...if we don't, they may very well be here telling us what to do.
Dinner calls!
American politicians and media talking heads are at once illiterate, stupid and arrogant.
Why are Middle East nations anti-west. Iran & the Arab states were invaded and raped by the French and the British Empires. Their people were conquered, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and foreign flags were raised over their cities.
In 1941 Russia and the British Empire invaded Iran, dessolved the legal government and installed a puppet government. In 1953 President Eisenhower had the CIA overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran.
If you were an Iranian how would you feel about Americans and Europeans?
We need to mind our own business around the world.
If you were an Iranian how would you feel about Americans and Europeans?
If I was Iranian right now I would be hoping that the US and Britian would come and help them out, which is exactly what many of the protestors are saying. One called in on CNN this morning, and of course all the English Signs in the street of Tehran, those messages are directed at Westerners.
but then I'm not a relativist fool either.
I can't help feel there's a better and truer course in between here.
No, it's not right or realistic to force Americans to protect the liberties of every person in the world. This is a long quote from an earlier post I did about our involvment in Iraq.
"The founders and I think all rational people should see that nation's in and of themselves have no rights. They exist solely to protect the lives, liberty and property of their citizens. Attacking a peaceful country which respected it's citizen's rights would always be wrong. However, a nation or regime violating it's citizen's lives and liberty is of course open to attack-- most especially by it's own people.
Dropping the issue of whether it was wise to Invade Iraq, let's look at whether we had a right to do it. The clear answer is yes.
There are gray area's I suppose-- but even most of the extreme left concede that Saddam's murderous government was killing thousands of it's people.
Now then, the next question is whether it was our job or obligation to "take him out". Proposing it was our "obligation" means acting on the premise that our own individual rights are to be sacrificed to help others and that we really have no rights. So this leaves us with the two moral conditions for war---
the first is a regime, group or gang intent or actively violating individual rights.
Second, that this group poses a realistic threat to our national security or that of our allies.
On this score, Saddam fit the bill. Leaving aside, whether Saddam had weapon's of mass destruction, we have to go back to our core fear. Saddam, stood out because, unlike many other dangerous, unstable leaders, he had not only a desire for these weapons and a formally active pursuit of them but had actually used them-- on a country he attacked (OK Iran was pretty wacko too) and on his own people. The fear of country like this, in a position to hold the world's major oil supplies hostage and further use this power to attack us or other countries was pretty realistic.
This then leaves one with the third reasonable requirement for just war which is that we don't use force to replace one bad government, with another, if we can help it. On this score also, our motives and efforts in Iraq were generally moral."
Now, getting to the issue of Iran. Without a doubt the current regime in Iran has long ago lost any legitamite right to exist. It should be the priority of Iranians to take them out!
However, there's a lot of stuff in between inviting people to 4th of July celebrations and going to war.
We should set a date for our withdrawal from the UN unless regimes like this are out of it.The gang summitt UN joke needs to die. Did you know-- Iran also got more than a Billion in world bank loans?
I also strongly advocate the creation by liberty minded people of a transnational, privately funded volunteer force to fight for freedom around the world.
IRAN - Now what can really be done?
Wow. Congress passed a resolution. Maybe they had a committee meeting before the vote. All of it is political mastrabation.
Resolutions and happy talk are worthless. Unless you are prepared to have American troops invade Iran then we need to mind our own affairs. I for one do not want any of my three sons fighting a war to "liberate" Iran or any other nation. Let them fight for their own freedom.
Mexico was founded in 1821. They did not get a working democracy up and running until the 2000 election. But they have established free elections their way . . . not based on force from outsiders.
I know that the Libertarian Party twitter account switched it's location to Tehran, 3:30, etc... to confuse the Iranian authorities. Though, I generally share your sentiments.
Yet we build walls now on our southern border.
Building a wall to defend against invasion is a legitimate function of government. The Berlin Wall was not to keep people from the West out; it converted the whole of East Germany into a giant prison camp.
I was unimpressed when then-Senator Obama mischaracterized the Berlin Wall; I shouldn't be surprised to find others sharing his point of view
What's libertarian about wanting to meddle in someones business? The naked foresight and self interest to realize that attempting to steer outcomes in your favor is preferable going along for the ride. Outcomes happen regardless. What's libertarian about passivity?
If you were my neighbor and I overheard you arguing with your wife, should I dial 911 and request a SWAT team?
No, but if you see him shoot her in the street and then start looking for the kids, you might want to think about dialing.
What if he's another fucking monster!
What if the sun doesn't raise tomorrow? What if the moon explodes? 'Maybe's the other guy is worse' isn't a massively compelling argument that the Holocaust denying madman with nuclear ambition should stay, unopposed or criticized.
Unless you are prepared to have American troops invade Iran then we need to mind our own affairs. I for one do not want any of my three sons fighting a war to "liberate" Iran or any other nation. Let them fight for their own freedom.
Short version of Libertarian philosophy: I got mine, fuck you.
If the French had "minded their own business" we'd all be living in South Canada. And of course there's the love of the Confederacy among freedom loving Libertarians, because damn that Lincoln and his interfering with the right of people to own other people.
If Libertarians were saying 'it's a great idea to support these people, but I'm not sure that [insert specific mechanism of helping] would be effective' that would be one thing. But the blanket hostility to the basic idea betrays it for what it is, xenophobia and narrow minded selflessness masquerading as principle.
@Gary: Interesting that you bring up the example of Mexico as illustrating non-interference. In 1866, after the French had installed a puppet emperor there, Gen. Sheridan left some 30,000 muskets, with ammunition, "at convenient places on our side of the river to fall into their hands." (Sheridan's memoirs, vol. 2. Link) If indifference to someone else's oppression is a core libertarian value, count me out.
Brilliant stuff, Eric.
This is why I left the LP in 2003. To put bluntly, the Big L Libertarians think freedom is an American right, not a human right.
I saw Iraq as a chance for liberty in a place of horrible despotism. The same sorts of people who thought it would be "inconvenient" to do anything there are doing the same now.
It reminds me of the old saying, "The chicken is involved in your breakfast, but the pig is committed." The Iranian people are now committed. We should at least be involved or we might as well give up on this whole "liberty" thing.
In fairness, Reason is about as "libertarian" as Democratic Underground. I've never understood how they get away with using the libertarian label.
"When Conservatives are more Libertarian, than the Libertarians"
It would appear that you are not familiar with the definition of "libertarian".
Yet we build walls now on our southern border.
Well, for one thing, we don't build any damn walls on our southern border, alas.
But if we ever get around to doing so it will not be remotely comparable to the Berlin Wall, for reasons which even you should be able to understand.
It would appear that you are not familiar with the definition of "libertarian".
There is no definition. Libertarians are more fragmented than conservatives or liberals.
I can understand the Paulists, Rockwell, AntiWar.com, and their ilk. They have an agenda; one that's basically Pro-Achmadinajad, and anti-Freedom.
But Cato?
I don't understand this. Cato, and Reason, were just as much anti the Iraq war as were Paul or Rockwell. And they are just as much anti any Iran war.
This is why I describe myself as a libertarian hawk, and refuse to have anything to do with the big-L libertarians.
Cato's credo ought to be, "Liberty for me, but not for thee."
"If Libertarians were saying 'it's a great idea to support these people, but I'm not sure that [insert specific mechanism of helping] would be effective' that would be one thing. But the blanket hostility to the basic idea betrays it for what it is, xenophobia and narrow minded selflessness masquerading as principle"
That comment pretty much says it all. Of course we can't fight everyones battles for them but at least we can not go out of our way to ignore their struggle or visibly aid evil which is what goes on today.
The first clear step all Libertarians should be behind is to make sure their is no inter-government aid of any kind going to governments like Iran's.
Another thing might be to allow private groups dedicated to bringing freedom to Iran (yes, even through force) to raise money in the the U.S.
This "borders" or "nation's" are sacred crap has to stop. Only individuals and their rights and freedoms are sacred. Governments that violate them should be considered rabid animals to be shot on sight- by anyone willing to do it.
"Gary said...
There is no evidence at all that these "Freedom" marchers in any way believe in freedom as we see it. They are protesting, but for what? Maybe they want to stop the stoning of women . . . and maybe they don't. Maybe the protests are 80% related to the economic problems and if the economy was fine they would be happy to support the government. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. "
Ok, I'm convinced. Let the shooting of civilians continue until they clearly declare what sort of government they want. What do we know, maybe they want to be shot by thugs in the middle of the night... who are we to judge.
We certainly shouldn't say anything bad about a government using thugs to shoot protesters; that would be very US-Centric of us. We need to let them sort it out and then work peaceably without complaint with whoever lives from the government killing app protesters.
Oh, and quit questioning our dedication to freedom, decency, and the right to shoot protesters in the head in the name of silencing dissent.
It would be nice to see some of this concern for human freedom directed at countries other than Iran. For instance, China is a brutal dictatorship. When will the people up in arms over Iran start calling for action against China?
The first clear step all Libertarians should be behind is to make sure their is no inter-government aid of any kind going to governments like Iran's.
Or Chinas?
One reason I am Conservative rather than Libertarian is that I do not believe 'free market' means doing dirty business dealings with dictators, plutocrats, and genocidal tyrants.
That just dirty dealing done dirt cheap...nothing free about it.
Plus, I my vast and worldly experience I have found that Libertarians are obsessed with porn; unfortunately they are completely unaware that porn watchers are THE worst lovers in bed.
Libertarians take note if your want to improve your sex life; Pornos are absolutely, without a doubt, horrid at sex.
It's hard not to notice that National Reviews concern for human rights is highly localized to a few specific countries. Egypt, for instance, does not get this same concern.
So I question their sincerity and motives.
These comments have certainly been interesting. (Junyo nails it.)
To add on to Rob's comment (wonderful argument strategy BTW):
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It doesn't matter what type/kind of government they want. They have a right to have whatever government THEY want, as they define "safety and happiness."
For folks to call themselves "libertarians" and not fully incorporate that passage from the Declaration of Independence into their Unbewußtsein is to thoroughly misunderstand that the "liberty" the Founders were on about (and the root of libertarian) was the "people's liberty to form a government of their choosing." That's it. That's the gold ring. Without that, any other right is irrelevant. All principles and rights derive from that idea.
What is clear (so painfully clear that arguments in dissent of supporting the protesters are shocking in their ignorance and/or abandonment of principle) is that the Iranian election was fraudulent. The protesters want the outcome of the election to be accurate. They're not protesting because the wrong guy won or they disagree with the winner's ideology. They just want non-fraudulent elections so the outcome reflects the will of the people. What else they want or what else they might support is irrelevant.
It is shocking that there are people in this country (or in other free countries) who would even have to pause for a second to consider if free and proper elections is something we'd champion, at minimum with our words.
Phelps: Freedom is indeed universal, but do not think, expect or think all should define it exactly as you do. Let me give you an example: Ayn Rand as an atheist - and in her practical life - defined freedom also as "freedom from religion" and religion as some type of "enslavement". One the other hand, Christians, Muslims and certrainly most Iranians understand freedom as "freedom to God" in the first place, and it could even entail a variety of forms, from a relative separation between church and state up to a theocratic state. Think about it....
You can say some values in the US constitution are universal, but not all and you cannot expect every constitution to be a carbon-copy of the US constitution.
Junyo: Hmmm the analogy with the neigbor is not exactly relevant here. last time I check iran is on a different continent, wit different people, different values, an own language (not English) and own tradition and way of thinking. it is called sovereignty.
You cannot compare the French during the Revolution to the current situation in Iran. Firstly, France has never declared the British evil per se, unlike Bush. ALL Iranians are still outraged by that statement (inspired by David Frum). Why can't the Iranians have nuclear power, while countries like France has. An even more radical question: why is it no problem that India, Pakistan, Israel, US etc. have how many nuclear warheads, but it would be a problem if Iran had? Make no mistake, I do not want them to have nuclear bombs, but you have to look at other countries before you look at Iran. They feel threatened after being called an axis of evil and understandably have seen what happened to Iraq, that had no WMD. The invasion together with the "axis of evil" is letting them ask themselves, would it not be better to get nuclear weapons to defend ourselves? Do you really want to be a policeman in iran, when the green revolutionaries - unlike Americans with the french - have not asked or requested the US to get involved militarily in any way.
In the US, the majority of the population wanted independence from the UK. Iranians are a relative homogenous population and ruled by their own people, not enslaved by another county or people.
Is the rigtht to life not the most basic democratic and human right? Would you not kill how many thousands of Iranians if you act military, and then you have to stay there also. How assure as you the majority of the population relaly want what you want to "give" to them? Do you really think the rural population of Iran, who voted overwhelmingly for Ahm... would welcome you as "liberators" if you invade Iran to install an Iraq or us style democracy? Get real.
A long lasting ranian style democracy can only happen if the current demonstration is the starting point and it grows from within and get stronger and the system is accepted by at least say 60 percent of the population.
A few practical issue: if you want to invade Iran, even only to :install democracy", have you thought about how their constitution should look like exactly, what the relationship between religion and state etc. should be. Is it not up to the majority of Iranians, not the majority (most Americans would not even find Iran on a map, or they would identify Australia as Iran...can show you a youtube where exactly this was pointed out), or even a few American to decide on this ultimately.
I like Ron Paul's domestic policy positions, generally.
I always thought he sounded about like Noam Chomsky WRT foreign policy, even when I donated to his campaign.
"Freedom for me, not for thee" isn't exactly right.
I think it's more like this:
Too many libertarians see individuals only within our borders. Outside our borders, a collectivist mindset takes hold. After all, it's easier to see Iran as simply, "another place, and none of our business." Looking at Iranians as individual human beings, just like you and me (not to mention just like Thomas Jefferson and Paul Revere) is just too painful.
Modern media has made it easier to see the horror, but no easier to change it. So we find it easier to hide.
It's disgusting, really. But I don't blame Cato for that.
Finally, for those who laughed or cringed at Bush's "Axis of Evil", have a nice 4th of July...
I describe myself as a Heinleinian Libertarian, BTW, if I have to.
BTW "sounding like Noam Chomsky" is NOT a compliment from me, EVER.
Chomsky is a downright disgusting waste of air.
Add Power and Control
and the crew at: Classical Values
among the libertarian Republicans cheering on the Iranian people. Got a link to Atlas (Pam G.) up today.
I also did a photo juxtaposition you might like.
I ♥ Sarah'cudda
I've had a problem with the Libertarian Movement since I observed their reaction to 9/11 [Randians and some others excepted].
Quoted from and linked to at:
http://www.thecampofthesaints.com/2009.06.21_arch.html#1245867902164
Warmongers haven't been this happy since Bush and Cheney lied America into Iraq.
If you want to "help" Iranians, get on a friggin plane and go over there. Let see what your internet tough guys have.
The rest of us say it is their problem to fix, not ours. America has more than enough problems, most of them caused by conservatives.
There is one hugely important idea that has yet to be brought up, but first, a restatement of the Paul-Rockwell-Jefferson-Washington position:
It's a great idea to support these people, but I'm not sure that American military meddling would be effective. We have a military to protect ourselves from foreign invaders, nothing else. Of course, if private American entities want to involve themselves, as I believe they should, here are some things we can do (without the coercive, politically self-serving government):
1. Get accurate information to the Iranian people about what is going on inside Iran. Support RFE/RL services (like this: http://www.rferl.org)
2. Smuggle working satellite phones into the country, so that people can call out with up-to-date information. Not the smuggler type? Contribute cash and awareness, then.
3. Fly over there, wear a big sign that says "American Citizen," and physically stand with the protestors. Think the police will keep shooting?
This is a compassionate libertarian position, and follows the advice of our non-interventionist founding fathers.
The one thing that has not been discussed yet is this: the Constitution. Most libertarians are actually constitutionalists first, and libertarians second. That is, the rule of law must be held in the highest (the highest!) regard, because the only alternative is the rule of men. If we are start another aggressive war in Iran, as the 'libertarian' Republicans desire, there should at least be discussion of congress declaring war, and following the protocol of the law.
Another good link for how to privately help the Iranians, short of getting on a plane:
http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens-for-windows/
We don't need the government to do our good deeds for us--this is as true in domestic welfare/charity as it is in foreign adventurism.
Because when the government starts a war, you can be damned sure they're going to take a whole lot of our liberties (patriot act, fisa, tsa, etc...and that's just the past eight years).
I have to say that "military intervention everywhere" vs. "callous, amoral isolationism" is a false choice.
We didn't set up Radio Free Asia/Europe or VOA because we were just aching to invade the Communist Bloc at any day.
Military action against Iran may one day be necessary, but I'm resetting my Twitter account's time and place to Iran to assist the protesters- not to encourage a frickin' invasion of the place.
And yeah, we really do need to kick out the loopy Paul-bots and the remnants of the Buchanan fascists out of the GOP- they're on the wrong side of history and an embarrassment.
we really do need to kick out the loopy Paul-bots and the remnants of the Buchanan fascists out of the GOP
Yes, then the GOP can get on with becoming the New FDR Party.
And Buchanan is not a facist, you historically illiterate clown.
Chris: the fact is the Paul's and Buchanan's are loved in the Middle-East by the people, not necessarily the govts. for their honest and consistent foreign policy, while neocon you describe yourself as one) Bushtards like yourself are very much hated by about the entire Muslim world. You are rather the representatives of of an amoral isolationist foreign policy that does not care how many innocent Afghans, Pakis, Iraqis are killed or displaced, what neocons are wishing for in Iran or calling for an attack on Iran last year (Ponhoretz, John Bolton, e.g. an attack in which how many thousands of innocent Iranians would be killed, some instantly, some injured for life). BTW: a neocon Buddhist is like a contradiction in termini. Would you ever see a Buddhist country like Thailand invade another country? It is high time the jacobine fascists in the GOP are driven out, then the GOP would finally have a chance to drawn in Independents, moderates and soft Democrats and win again, otherwise the GOP is doomed, perhaps for as many years as D strategist Carville has written about.eryp
Barry: the issue here is not freedom for me, not for thee. it is rather freedom for me, and you have the freedom to define freedom for thee. By military intervention - where always many innocent people lose their lives - you are taking away the basic "freedom of thees", e.g. the freedom to live.
Do you have a problem with foreign policy sounding like Robert Taft or Howard Buffet, father of Warren? Those are rather the historical roots of R\Paul, not libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky. Paul is very informed about foreign policy, from CIA quarters etc. e.g. issues that most Americans are basically quite clueless about.
"I have to say that "military intervention everywhere" vs. "callous, amoral isolationism" is a false choice.
We didn't set up Radio Free Asia/Europe or VOA because we were just aching to invade the Communist Bloc at any day.
Military action against Iran may one day be necessary, but I'm resetting my Twitter account's time and place to Iran to assist the protesters- not to encourage a frickin' invasion of the place.
And yeah, we really do need to kick out the loopy Paul-bots and the remnants of the Buchanan fascists out of the GOP- they're on the wrong side of history and an embarrassment."
Best comment so far. I guess I'm a Randian on this as on most things.
I think her basic view would be that- no we as citizens of the U.S. should not be forced to fight for the freedom of Iran or forced to fund any war of that kind- until and unless they become a direct threat to us(which is open to debate). However, we are also free as individuals to condemn the actions of the Iranian government and aid the people there in any way we can- up to and including the active armed support.
We also should expect our government to not be funding Iran in any way as we do now through the IMF and World Bank or giving them any unearned respect through agencies like the "United Nations".
Most likely, regimes like this would have collapsed years ago without this support.Remember that Iran also gets lots of technology from countries like Russia which also recieve tons of aid and loans. Has any of Obama's Hamas cash gotten into Iran or aided other Iran supported terror groups?
that does not care how many innocent Afghans, Pakis, Iraqis are killed
I know- every time America's intervened anywhere, it's been a second (or third) Holocaust, man!
(and I really need to get a copy of that Extended version of Saving Private Ryan where the Paul-bots stand on the beaches of Normandy, yelling: "Turn back! Go away! Neither of you British or American soldiers have the moral standing to fight Nazi Germany!!)
And Buchanan is not a facist, you historically illiterate clown
Actually, Buchanan is a fascist generally and a National Socialist more specifically (and I don't think it's the conservative Republicans that need to check for AIPAC members under their floor-boards).
Would you ever see a Buddhist country like Thailand invade another country?
I think you may be confusing them with the left-over leftist, granola chomping aged hippie "Street Zen" Euro-Buddhists here in the states, but why would I need them to "invade" anyone? I'm perfectly satisfied with the Thais fighting fascists on their southern border and their rather pointed criticism of the Peoples Republic of China (though it would've been nice for them to airlift relief supplies to the Burmese people after the cyclone over the objections of the Burmese Junta...)
Yeah, that's it- "Down with meddling Radio Free Asia!!!"
Actually, Buchanan is a fascist generally and a National Socialist more specifically
Actualy he's not, and it would be nice if people shooting their mouths off about politics had some clue about what the words "fascist" and "Nazi" meant. Hint - they do not mean "somebody I don't agree with it".
For instance, you seem eager to invade the world. Buchanan does not. This do not make you either a Nazi or a fascist. It just makes you a moron.
Since Chris is 38 years old he has no excuse not to know the meanings of words. Mind you, he is a 38 year old "student".
I guess I'm a Randian on this as on most things.
That's not something most people would brag about in public. Rand was as libertarian as Lenin.
Rand was as libertarian as Lenin.
Really this is too senseless a remark to spend much time responding to. There's very little factual evidence that she supported anything other than the basic rights of all people to self defence.
I suppose, what you are saying is that her endorsement of moral absolutes is in some way "totalitarian".
This is the perverted vision that has made the Libertarian party a joke. Not only are we not to fight for any one else's or our own liberties and defence but we are not allowed to even judge one system or idea as better than any other. Anything goes!
As Rand said, this kind of thinking disarms the innocent against the worst types of thugs.
For instance, you seem eager to invade the world.
Nope- just the Sudan (which of course is the Whole . Wide . Woiyld!!)
Buchanan does not. This do not make you either a Nazi or a fascist.
I guess I'd have to kind of let you all know that being a National Socialist German Workers Party fanboy involves just an itty bitty bit more than one's positions on
foreign policy, human rights and/or immigration policy.
I don't plan on being here, like, all frickin' day, but here're but a few examples:
the Holocaust denial,
the praises of Hitler and his Waffen SS Einsatz Gruppen,
the jew-baiting and Mossad conspiracy theories,
the defense of death-camp guards
He (especially in his latest book_ really does go beyond "fighting WWII wasn't necessary" to absolving the Nazis of their butchery. He's not quite a "neo-Nazi" (because he's not just a punk who wants to "shock" people)- he's just a frickin' Nazi.
It just makes you a moron.
I know you are, but . . . what am I?? (besides a 38-year old "student" [and a booger]!)
I guess I'd have to kind of let you all know that being a National Socialist German Workers Party fanboy involves just an itty bitty bit more than one's positions on
foreign policy, human rights and/or immigration policy.
I think it is blindngly obvious what it is you think makes somebody a Nazi "fanboy".
Sadly for you, it takes more than disliking Jews to make somebody a Nazi.
the Holocaust denial
He does not deny the Holocaust. Nor does he "praise Hitler" or any of the other mindless bile you spew.
He (especially in his latest book_ really does go beyond "fighting WWII wasn't necessary" to absolving the Nazis of their butchery.
You witless clown, you would not know what is in his book even if you had read it.
There is a disgsting racist bigot on this thread. He is you.
I know you are, but . . . what am I?
Oh, I think it's pretty damn obvious what you are.
Nor does he "praise Hitler" or any of the other mindless bile you spew.
OK- you just say: "No, no! A thousand times no!!" and we'll leave it at that. You're an anonymous idiot (and that's OK).
You witless clown
That is taking things a bit far! I demand satisfaction.
...there is a disgsting racist bigot on this thread.
Oh, tell us! Who could it be?
He is you.
D'oh! Double *ouch*!
I know- I deserve all the scorn heaped upon me on this thread after willfully engaging anonymous internet people who think that:
Rand was as libertarian as Lenin.
Yeah, that's right- fucking Ayn Rand was a "collectivist". I'm not sure- did I waste enough time interacting with fascists, Libertarians and Paulbots today?
Why, yes I did.
DONDEROOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
I especially liked you trying to claim you don't know who Julian Sanchez is in his blog comments after mentioning Reason and haunting Hit & Run for years.
? The Libertarian Party sent out several press releases, blog entries, and had speakers at many of the Tea Parties. Though they certainly could do better and need to fire the conservatives who work there.
I do agree that they the right has taken over the Tea Parties. I posted a story about it at njlp.org
I also am hopeful that ISIL can find its legs again. I was sad to learn that they don't sell their great pamphlets anymore. I joined on a as a member last week. Have you sent them a donation lately?
We all need to work together to defeat this Obama:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/how-obama-lost-reelection-for-the-presidency/
Post a Comment