Message

PI: The U.S. Military is defined and limited by the Constitution as being for the DEFENSE of America

BH: Since you're under consideration for an LPC position and not the federal bench, I won't bother correcting your misunderstandings of constitutional jurisprudence.

PI: I know more about the U.S. Constitution than most Supreme Court Justices, and I would embarrass you further than you’ve already embarrassed yourself up ‘till now.

The word "defense" only occurs twice in the Constitution. Its use in the Preamble neither grants nor modifies the war power, which is enumerated with the other federal powers in Article One Section Eight. Its use in clause one of that section does not modify the war power granted in clause eleven. The phrase containing it merely modifies clause one's grant of the taxation power. The scope of that modification was settled -- in my view, incorrectly -- by US v. Butler (1936). The competing interpretations were 1) Madison's view that the phrase is just a reference to the rest of the enumerated powers, and 2) Hamilton's view that the phrase conferred a distinct power to spend tax revenues on anything that could be considered "common defense" or "general welfare". Neither interpretation held the phrase to modify any of the other enumerated powers, including the war power of clause eleven.

In US v. Butler the Court sided with Hamilton, and thus opened the door for the New Deal's nanny-state entitlement programs. Last year I wrote a detailed rebuttal of Justice Robert's opinion, available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/334. Not only did Roberts interpret clause one incorrectly, but his opinion decided the case on other grounds, which means it was unnecessary for the Court to choose between the competing interpretations of clause one. After Roosevelt's subsequent Court-packing threat, the Court in 1937 then reversed itself on the commerce-clause (mis)interpretation that was decisive in Butler, and accepted Butler's 1-year-old (mis)interpretation of clause one without argument (Helvering v. Davis, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis). Thus in US v. Butler what Justice Roberts did was off-handedly authorize the nanny state merely via what should have been considered obiter dicta (i.e. "an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding.")

(If this is the point at which I'm supposed to be embarrassed by your superior knowledge of Constitutional jurisprudence, just let me know.)

>>>>> PI: I’m flat out saying you’re dishonest if you claim to be a libertarian and also support the war in Iraq.

Your charge of dishonesty is laughable. Unlike you (e.g. on compulsion of testimony), I've made no effort to conceal my views in this discussion. My forthright refusal to accept your anarchistic definition of libertarianism simply does not constitute "dishonesty" on my part.

>>>>> BH: I disputed the assertion that defending liberty outside our borders is never helpful for defending liberty inside our borders. Do you assert the contrary, or not?

PI: Yes I do. It is absolutely NOT helpful for the cause of liberty in the United States [..]

>>>>> PI: Switzerland has been surrounded by war yet haven’t been involved in one for more than 100 years. That’s not an accident.

Yes, and Switzerland has done far less than America has in advancing the cause of liberty in the last 100 years. Your example only strengthens my argument that our approaches differ markedly in the extent to which they maximize the incidence of liberty.

I challenge you to quote a previous email from you to me that states or clearly implies that defending liberty outside our borders is never helpful for defending liberty inside our borders. You may have thunk it, but you didn't write it.

Your attempted slur of "fascist" is laughable. Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". None of this characterizes my positions.

By contrast, the main thing you've said to distinguish yourself from standard anarcho-capitalism is a vague reference to "limited government". For all I know, you might be an anarcho-capitalist who considers free-market arbitration and self-defense services to constitute "limited government".

>>>>> PI: If you’re [sic] so-called “devotion to human liberty” means you’re trying to rationalize and justify unwarranted, unprovoked, unconstitutional, and unreasonable attacks against non-threatening sovereign nations because you personally don’t like they way they do things or the level of freedom the people have, you should mark yourself as equally libertarian as Pol Pot, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

Congratulations, you exhibited Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) in only your third response to me. Of course, the condition of your if-clause is clearly false, and so your subjunctive comparison to Hitler etc. is moot.

>>>>> PI: There have always been tyrants willing to kill people in the name of “defending liberty” (as long as it’s the kind of liberty THEY think they should have) or “providing security”.

>>>>> PI: No, you’re not more interested in defending human liberty. You’re interested in enforcing what YOU consider to be liberty on foreign peoples at the point of a gun.

>>>>> PI: You’re interested in violating everything that is libertarianism and call it for the “cause of liberty”.

You seem to think that lovers of liberty can maximize the overall incidence of human liberty merely by setting a good example of not initiating force. Or perhaps you think that if lovers of liberty ever initiate force, then some metaphorical hymen is broken and the resulting situation can never be characterized as exhibiting increased liberty. Either way, you're going to have to actually defend your premise, rather than merely assume it without argument.

>>>>> BH: Non-responsive. I asked for evidence that "there are hundreds of thousands less Iraqi people" as a result of the 2003 invasion. Let us know if you ever come up with any.

PI: Idiotic. If you want to calculate the exact numbers of every single death from the war launched against Iraq in 1991, in 2003, bombing them for 12 years straight of bombing them without stop and keeping them from life saving medicines, etc. feel free.

What's "idiotic" is pretending I asked for "exact numbers". I instead asked for evidence to support your statement about "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi deaths from "this war" in Iraq, by which I understood you to mean the war begun in 2003. Lacking such evidence, you resort to an expansive definition of "this war", and try to blame America for earlier fatalities that Saddam's policies caused among his army and populace. I simply don't agree that Saddam's tyrannical sovereignty trumps the liberty of individual Iraqis, Kurds, and Kuwaitis, and I gladly cede to your side any reader who shares your disregard for their liberty.

>>>>> PI: Iraq’s trading partners are within their rights to decline to engage in commerce with Iraq, but that’s not what happened. They blocked Iraq from trading with anyone else. There were many nations who would have traded with Iraq but they were stopped by the U.S.

No, they were stopped by their own prior agreement to comply with Security Council resolutions like 661 (which put restrictions on trade with Iraq). There is no language in 661 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm) authorizing the U.S. or any state to forcibly interfere with trade by any other state that chooses to disregard the commitments of its voluntary membership in the U.N. If you know of a nation that attempted to trade with Iraq and was stopped by U.S. military force, please give details of the incident.

>>>>> PI: Since Bush got into office, the LP has been wooing disenchanted Republicans into the party, just like you. They aren’t libertarians in the slightest and they seek to change the LP to be something it’s not…just like you.

>>>>> PI: In other words, they want to continue business as usual and the only part of the LP they agree with is lowering their own taxes.

I'm glad you agree with me that too many Libertarians are simplistic anti-IRS-itarians. As I said last year on the aforementioned page, "the party needs to emphasize issues that make it clear that LP members care about YOUR liberty and not just THEIR tax bill and dope stash."

>>>>> PI: I don’t know which is a grosser violation of libertarian thought. That someone would claim the unprovoked violent overthrow of a sovereign nation and murder of its people is a significant increase in human liberty [..]

I simply disagree that sovereignty is more important than liberty. If you want to argue that being sovereigntarian is more important than being libertarian, I advise you to avoid transparently clumsy tactics like calling all fatalities "murder" when the most collateral-damage-averse military in human history liberates a nation from a tyrant who literally (not metaphorically) murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.

>>>>> PI: or that they’d want to stick around while the party is invaded by those who are against libertarianism such as all who support the war in Iraq.

Aren't you thus saying that your own continued membership in the LP is a "gross violation of libertarian thought"? I for one don't mind allying with those who don't want to fight every form or incidence of tyranny that I want fought, just as long as they're pulling northward with me on the Nolan Chart. Other people care more about having clean hands than about maximizing liberty, and so it's understandable that they might bolt a Libertarian Party in search of a CleanHandsItarian Party.

>>>>> PI: If you are pro-war, and the party is against the war, you are against the party and against libertarianism in general.

>>>>> PI: That includes the expulsion of anyone who would ever advocate America forcibly replacing tyranny with liberty in any nation that has not directly attacked us from the libertarian party

OK, so you're saying that disagreement with (IV)(D)(2) of the LP platform is grounds for expulsion. Is disagreement with any of the other 60 planks of the platform also in your mind grounds for expulsion?

>>>>> BH: It's ridiculously narrow-minded to take disagreement with your personal judgments about political tactics as evidence for dishonesty in one's claims about the political principles that one supports. However, it conveniently saves you from a lot of hard thinking if you imagine that anyone who disagrees with your tactics must also secretly disagree with your principles.

PI: You mean like the narrow-mindedness and lack of thinking on the part of those who would murder people based on their own personal judgments about how free they think they should be?

Feel free to continue hurling charges of "murder", comparisons to Hitler, allegations of fascism, etc. They let our audience know exactly what you think of their level of intelligence.

>>>>> PI: If someone seriously supports smaller government they won’t vote for Republicans because voting for a Republican guarantees you’ll have larger government. That’s a fact.

In this era in America, nothing that liberty-lovers do in the voting booth will cause government to actually shrink. But a reasonable person could argue that a vote e.g. for Reagan in 1980 helped make the government be not as large as it otherwise would have been. If you think that questioning the honesty of such a person is the way to grow the LP, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>>>> PI: Your love of liberty and hatred of aggression is so strong, that you want to use aggression to violate the sovereignty of other nations, to violate the U.S. Constitution, to violate libertarian principles, and to murder people so you can enforce what you deem to be the best way for them to live.

Your charge of "murder" remains histrionic. I plead guilty to believing that neither national sovereignty nor the U.S. Constitution always trump human liberty. I disagree that to believe this is to "violate libertarian principles".

>>>>> PI: America is to be a beacon of hope and liberty for other nations, not the champion of it.

I and many other liberty-lovers disagree that there are never cases in which it is advisable for a free nation to fight for liberty outside its borders.

>>>>> PI: You keep mentioning how people like to “save thinking” and it seems as though you’re vastly experienced in this area as you don’t do much thinking of any kind when it comes to libertarianism.

>>>>> BH: Are you proud enough of anarchism to declare yourself an anarchist? Or is there some government first use of force (e.g. taxation to finance court/police protection for the indigent) that you would allow?

PI: I wouldn’t declare myself to be an anarchist, because I’m not one. I support the use of force in the defense of rights and I support limited government. This means the government of America has limited authority, even limited authority to defend rights and protect people.

Non-responsive, so I ask again: is there any government first use of force (e.g. compulsory taxation to finance court/police protection for the indigent) that you would allow? Do you agree with the Constitution's granting to the federal government the power of compulsory taxation and compulsory regulation of interstate commerce?

>>>>> BH: You define a libertarian as one who seeks to maximize liberty only by agreeing with fellow liberty-lovers to set a good example of abstaining from first use of force. I define a libertarian as one who seeks to maximize liberty, period.

PI: No, “I” don’t define libertarian. Libertarianism is what it is.

Libertarianism isn't pre-defined by any god or Platonic universal or lexicography committee. You are advocating a particular conception of libertarianism; I am advocating another. (Your conception is indeed closer to the LP's current official conception, but we in the LP are free to fix the flaws in that conception.) If the definition you advocate is different than how I characterize it above, I challenge you to explain the difference.

>>>>> PI: If you’re a member of the party you agreed to a statement of principles as a condition of your membership. If you support starting unprovoked wars for ANY REASON, you’re violating those principles

I've already explained what I think provoked the war. Feel free to look it up on Yahoo Groups if you missed it. (That will generate ad impressions that will help my Yahoo stock options. :-)

>>>>> BH: If you oppose the first use of force under any and all circumstances, you are an anarchist. If you would allow first use of force even just in a "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in [one's] favor" [can you say "Sixth Amendment"?], then you've lost your anarchist virginity, and have to debate what other ends might permit coercive means.

PI: As usual, you’re completely wrong. Anarchists are those who believe in the abolition of government.

If you're unfamiliar with the ideological foundation of the libertarian flavor of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism, a good introduction is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism. I ask again: can your "limited government" ever make first use of force (like a sovereign government), or is it limited to enforcing contracts and other secondary uses of force (like anarcho-capitalist protection associations)?

>>>>> PI: I am not now, nor have I ever been an anarchist. And please stop your laughable comparison between having a witness mandated to present evidence in court [...]

I don't doubt that the issue is uncomfortable for you, since it's a direct collision between the U.S. Constitution and your non-aggression principle. It speaks volumes that the only part of my last response that you didn't quote was me saying:

> The "topic at hand" is your claim that absolute fealty
> to the non-coercion principle is the one true standard
> for libertarianism. Either you stand by this claim, or you don't.
> As a candidate for the Ex-Com, why be so shy about taking a
> stand on this point?

This discussion has little point if you're not willing to defend your claim that absolute fealty to the non-aggression principle is the one true standard for libertarianism. Your evasiveness is understandable; that position is indeed hard to defend.

>>>>> PI: It only increases how badly you look and shines a bright light on how untenable your arguments are.

It's hilariously ironic that you can talk about "shining a bright light" on the one argument of mine that you declined to quote, even though directly asked in the context of your Ex-Com candidacy.

>>>>> PI: Your ridiculous excuse for logic is that if we have a law requiring people to testify in court, it’s ok to commit genocide.

If anyone in our audience can't see how Paul errs here in attempting to derive his "genocide" implication from anything I've said, just let me know and I'll forward an explanation to you written in crayon by my four-year-old.

2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)