From:
"ptireland" <ptireland@...>
Date:
Fri Oct 7, 2005 12:38 am
Subject: Response to Brian
Holtz
BH: The state's duty to oppose and prevent aggression shouldn't end abruptly at its borders
PI: Wrong. The state's duty to oppose and prevent aggression can, and should end where our borders end.
BH:That's a perfectly self-consistent position to take. We'll just have to agree to disagree over whether it's a liberty-maximizing one.
PI: I suppose so since I know I’m right, and you think you are.
BH: Saddam's regime killed over a million people, invaded one neighbor, annexed another, fired ballistic missiles at two more, and defied UN disarmament mandates after building a track record of 1) harboring terrorists, 2) using chemical WMDs, and 3) pursuing nuclear WMDs.
PI: All of which is entirely and completely irrelevant and absolutely no justification to use the U.S. Military. It wouldn't matter if Saddam was taking over the entire middle-east, developing nuclear weapons, building and using WMD's against his own people, raping women, murdering their husbands, and boiling their children alive in oil. None of that is justification to use the U.S. Military.
BH: There are indeed solid AmericaFirstItarian principles for Americans not ever fighting aggression in Iraq, just as there are solid CaliforniaFirstItarian principles for Californians not ever fighting aggression in Maine. You can call such principles "libertarian" all you want, but that won't make it so.
But even from an America-centric perspective, you conveniently 1) omitted any mention of Saddam's support for anti-American terrorists, and 2) artificially qualified Saddam's WMD ambitions as being against only his own people. Thus you failed to even face the self-defense argument made from the conjunction of Saddam's nuclear ambitions and his support for anti-American terrorists.
PI: What exactly is “anti-American terrorists” supposed to mean? Not one of the terrorists Saddam supported attacked America. Not one. He rewarded the terrorists who blew up Israelis. While I think this is horrible and wrong, it’s also none of America’s business. Nor is it our business of the terrorists he was supporting hated America. Until they directly attack American soil or ships, which they did not do, we have no valid justification to invade Iraq. In fact even if they did attack America, we’d first have to prove that Saddam hired them to do it specifically and not just that he gave them money in order for it to be a valid use of America’s DEFENSIVE military.
PI: only a GlobalGovernmentitarian would claim ignoring something the UN ordered them to do was a violation worth invasion.
BH: You were the one who was trying to apply a hyper-legalistic Sovereigntarian individual-liberty-ignoring state-personifying argument that the American state can only invade the Iraqi state if the latter initiates force against the former. I simply pointed out that as a Sovereigntarian, you should also consider it an initiation of force for a state to violate its contractual agreements with other states.
BH: Saddam's support for anti-American terrorists is indisputable. Saddam harbored Achille Lauro terrorist Abu Abbas, WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal
PI: Actually it’s very disputable. Whether or not these terrorists stayed in Iraq or had some training within Iraq does not mean Saddam was training them or supporting them. ALL of the money to train the WTC terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and nearly all of those who took part in the attacks were from Saudi Arabia. NONE of them were from Iraq and NONE of them was working for Saddam Hussein.
PI: America harbored and trained all of the 9/11 terrorists in exactly the same way Saddam did. [...] He never helped anyone who attacked America, never paid them, and never "harbored" them in anyway America didn't do the same for the 9/11 terrorists
BH: Laughably false. Al Qaeda WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq where he lived freely and apparently drew a government salary. Abu Abbas used an Iraqi diplomatic passport to flee Italy after killing a wheelchair-bound American on the Achille Lauro, and Saddam protected him from extradition for years in Baghdad before he was finally captured by the U.S. military in 2003.
PI: Your claims that he drew a government salary are baseless and irrelevant. He wasn’t from Iraq, he wasn’t working for Iraq, and even if he had a job with the Iraqi government before taking part in the Saudi Arabian WTC attacks, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Any attacks that happened in Italy are irrelevant. Nothing other than an attack on American land or against an American ship is a valid justification for using the U.S. military. This is NOT an opinion, it’s a fact and it’s backed by the U.S. Constitution which you tend to ignore, even when I prove you wrong when you try to cite it as I did several times in our previous waste of time you call a conversation.
PI: Also, you ignore the fact that Iraq, was attacked by America without justification or cause in 1991.
BH: That America had no "justification or cause" for answering Kuwait's appeal to reverse its brutal annexation is not a "fact", it's simply your opinion. An example of a "fact" is that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait was blatant aggression, and that Kuwait appealed to America and its other allies to reverse that annexation under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 678.
PI: Once again, you’re confusing facts and opinions. I will not accept any UN resolutions as a valid reason to use the U.S. military. The U.S. military is not working for the U.N.; it answers to the U.S. Constitution which defines its limited role and scope as to be used for the DEFENSE of U.S. land and ships from direct attack (not “perceived threats”) and for nothing else. The appeals of Kuwait are irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait because they were using slanted drilling techniques to steal Iraq’s oil are irrelevant. No use of the U.S. military other than defending against a direct attack on U.S. soil or ships is a valid one according to the U.S. Constitution because no other use is for the defense of U.S. soil and ships. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Only a WORLDGOVERNMENTARIAN (aka non-libertarian) such as yourself would disagree.
PI: America, and the rest of the world are in MORE danger, not less because of the Iraq war.
BH: Defending liberty does not always increase security. The tension between liberty and security is the essence of the Nolan Chart.
PI: The Nolan chart does not determine who is or is not a libertarian.
BH: Thank you for not disputing my claim that defending liberty does not always increase security.
PI: The limited role and scope of the U.S. military does not include “defending liberty” in other nations. Nor does it include liberating them, or settling disputes amongst them, or disarming people who don’t like us.
PI: The Non-Aggression Principle does.
BH: Yes, I'm familiar with your repeated assertion of this. However, my dictionary says:
libertarian n. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
PI: I could care less what your dictionary says. The defining characteristic of a libertarian is the adherence of the Non-Aggression Principle. This is what separates real libertarians from those who merely have libertarian leanings such as those who happen to fit into the upper quadrant of the Nolan chart. Any claims you make contradicting the fact that the core belief of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle are a violation of your pledge. Any use of aggression, including using it to enforce America’s brand of “freedom” on oppressed people elsewhere is a violation of that pledge, and of the core belief of libertarianism. If you claim otherwise, you only prove your own ignorance.
BH: I don't agree that the incidence of aggression is minimized -- i.e. that the incidence of liberty is maximized -- if liberty-lovers merely promote aggression-virginity through the example of their abstinence. I instead advocate the Anti-Aggression Principle, which says that the role and incidence of aggression in human society is to be minimized. You assume that the landscape of attainable levels of liberty has no local maxima, i.e. that an investment in force initiation could never lead to a net reduction in the overall incidence of force initiation. This assumption is in my judgment obviously false, and is what distinguishes non-aggression anarchists from anti-aggression libertarians.
PI: Bad people do bad things. It’s not the valid role of America’s DEFENSIVE military to find every bad man on earth and stop them. Nor is it America’s role to topple every dictatorship or totalitarian regime. Freedom is to be earned. It is to be won by those who would have it.
PI: America's role in defending liberty ends where America's borders end. As much as you wish for a world without borders, the fact remains that we have them
BH: Borders are a very good thing. I just disagree with your AmericaFirstItarian claim that the American state should have absolutely zero role in defending liberty outside its borders.
PI: I’m an American libertarian. I am responsible for myself, and for making sure my country doesn’t violate its limited powers by invading other nations. Other people in other nations have the same responsibility for themselves. To claim that we should shoulder the burden for fulfill their desire freedom is far from libertarianism. It’s no different than saying your neighbors have a right to take what you earn to pay for their desire to watch cable television.
PI: This is all pure opinion and also irrelevant. Ask the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq whose family has been murdered by the American military while defending their homeland [..]
BH: It's laughable to dismiss the views of the majority of Iraqis as "pure opinion" and in the same breath invoke the opinion of the tiny fraction of Iraqis who have lost a family member as a consequence of the invasion.
PI: Actually, no it’s not. What’s laughable is claiming to be a libertarian while supporting the use of aggression to spread American hegemony. What’s laughable are your attempts to call this use of unprovoked aggression “defending freedom”
BH: The killing of aggressors is never murder, nor are unintentional collateral deaths caused by those fighting aggressors while seeking to minimize such deaths. You can bleat "murder" all you want, but in doing so you're preaching a conclusion to your choir, rather than arguing for that conclusion.
PI: I’m still waiting for you to be correct on a single topic. Once again, you ludicrously claim that the killing of aggressors is never murder, and you dismiss others who die as a result of your aggression “collateral deaths”. America’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq is no different than Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked aggression towards the Kurds. If I see a man beating his wife and I kill him, IT IS MURDER. Your attempts to rationalize away that fact hold no water. Feel free to ask any lawyer you want. There goes your claim of killing aggressors not being murder. Now you will predictably try to say the man was killing his wife and you killed him to save her. That doesn’t fly either. The rules that apply to individuals do not apply to nation states and your attempts to paint them are ridiculous. As an individual the woman can appoint you as an agent in her defense. The military is not used that way. It is to be used solely for the DEFENSE of American ships and soil and for nothing else. Even if someone else begs for our help, the limited role of the U.S. government does not allow the military to be used for anything else. I’ve proven this dozens of times to you.
PI: But even if they were better off, is this justification for misusing the U.S. military to invade a nation that never posed a credible threat to the U.S.?
BH: I didn't say that merely making Iraq better off makes the invasion justified. I just refuted your laughable claim that "the people of Iraq are no better off now than they were with Saddam in power".
PI: No, you didn’t. You only disputed it; you refuted nothing. The indisputable fact remains that the Iraqi people are less free now than they were with Saddam in power. The U.S. has shut down their newspapers, kicked down their doors, searched their homes for weapons, captured people who never committed crimes, jailed them, tortured them, beat them (sometimes to death), violated their religious beliefs, etc.
PI: But don't take my word for it, take the word of the 9/11 commission which stated clearly that Iraq NEVER POSED A CREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA.
BH: Flatly false, yet again. The 9/11 commission report mentions Iraq 158 times. The closest it comes to saying the above is that after the plot against G.H.W. Bush's life, "no further intelligence came in about terrorist acts planned by Iraq". But the report notes without any criticism a DoD paper described as saying that Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction. The invasion of Iraq was outside the scope of the 9/11 commission report, and the report simply does not dispute the charge that Iraq's involvement with WMDs and anti-American terrorism constituted a threat to America. If you claim otherwise, I defy you to quote the report.
PI: A strategic threat? What strategy were they a threat to? The Bush doctrine? Iraq’s involvement with Palestinian terrorists and even the terrorists who happened to stay in Iraq for awhile DO NOT amount to a credible or valid threat to America. Sorry, but it’s the truth. Your claims that they knew the WTC terrorists aren’t enough. Your claims that the WTC terrorists were “harbored” or “funded” by Saddam are absolutely false and baseless. You have absolutely no proof what-so-ever to show that they were. I defy you to come up with some proof that existed pre-invasion so we can know for sure it wasn’t made up to cover Bush’s illegal use of the military.
PI: Bush planned on invading Iraq before he was even selected by the Supreme Court as president
BH: Even if Bush had spent his high school prom night planning the invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't affect whether the justification I've given for it is reasonable.
PI: None of what you presented amounts to any justification at all. And as far as it being reasonable, you’re beyond the use of reason. There is absolutely NO justification for using the U.S. military other than to respond to a direct attack on U.S. land or U.S. ships. Once again, this is not an opinion, it’s a fact as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. I’m sure now you’ll call me a Constitutionitarian or some other such nonsense as you often do when I prove you absolutely wrong.
PI: Hundreds of thousands were murdered, and tortured by America, just as they were under Saddam
BH: Your charges of mass torture by America are absurd.
PI: your claims that America did not torture people are absolutely laughable.
BH: What's "laughable" here is your reading comprehension. I denied that "hundreds of thousands" were tortured. I didn't claim that no Iraqis have been abused by the American military.
PI: I said hundreds of thousands were tortured and murdered. Not all were tortured, not all were murdered. Most were just murdered, some were tortured and then murdered, and some were just tortured.
BH: Fatalities caused by all sides in
the entire conflict since the 2003 invasion are perhaps 50,000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_conflict_in_Iraq.
PI: I don't recognize anything at wikipedia as a valid reference source.
BH: The Wikipedia article includes 30 source citations, and a bibliography of 14 references. But don't let a few pesky facts stand in the way of your dogmatic beliefs...
PI: My dogmatic belief in the actual truth is nothing to be ashamed of. Your dogmatic beliefs in outright lies, and your attempts to rationalize the use of unprovoked aggression are.
PI: Also, if you're going to count casualties caused by America, you'll have to include the 200,000 who were starved to death and kept from medicine,
BH: The deaths in question were Saddam's fault for his six-year refusal of the U.N.'s oil-for-food humanitarian offers while he was refusing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions concerning the reversal of his aggression against Kuwait. You can ignore all the relevant facts documented by Reason Magazine at http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml, but ignoring them won't make them go away.
PI: Nope. They weren’t Saddam’s fault. Neither the UN, nor the US had any legitimate authority to attack Iraq in the first place, to block shipments of food and medicine, or to make an oil for food program. He was under no obligation to fulfill a contract he was forced to sign under duress after being the victim of an unprovoked attack by America in 1991. ALL of the deaths were America’s fault. Your pitiful attempts to shift the blame won’t change that.
PI: If you expect others not to use force against you, you must not use force against them, even if you don't like what they're doing.
BH: If what others are doing is initiating force unrestrained by any effective justice system, then true lovers of liberty consider themselves free to organize to stop it.
PI: Yes, true lovers of liberty and even others are free to organize and stop it. But they are not free to use the U.S. military to do it. Oppressed people can and should organize a force capable of overthrowing dictatorships and oppressive totalitarian regimes. I’d even be willing to donate to such a cause, but not if they intend to use the U.S. military to do it. I will NEVER condone the unconstitutional use of the DEFENSIVE U.S. military for any reason other than defending or retaliating against a direct attack on U.S. soil or ships against those who were directly responsible after proof is given that they were.
PI: You have only as much sovereignty as you give.
BH: No lover of liberty recognizes an absolute sovereignty to commit arbitrary aggression against third parties.
PI: No lover of liberty recognizes the use of unprovoked aggression against another nation who has not attacked ours (even if they are brutal to their own people and others) as an act of libertarianism.
PI: Libertarians support individual, state, and national sovereignty.
BH: If you say the sovereignty of an aggressive tyrannical state trumps the liberty of individuals, then you're just not as libertarian as I am.
PI: Nice strawman you’ve beaten there. Individual liberty belongs to individuals. Your individual liberty does not entitle you to use a collective military to carry out what you personally deem to be “liberating people”. State sovereignty trumps any and all contracts made with any other nation or group of nations. A state can’t give away it’s sovereignty because it is not the states to give away.
PI: As a HugeGovernmentitarian, it must get confusing that we have so many different names for countries, and so many maps with lines on them.
BH: The map hasn't been drawn that can confuse me about whether state sovereignty is more important than individual liberty.
PI: Bringing back the strawman again I see. Your attempts to blur the lines between individual and state sovereignty are fruitless. Individual liberty is to be protected by individuals. State sovereignty is to be protected by state militaries.
BH: I already corrected you on the
alleged unconstitutionality of all U.S. interventions
at
http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Paul_Ireland/2005-02-14.htm.
PI: You have never "corrected" me on any subject. In fact I can't think of a single time you've been correct about anything.
BH: I'm in awe of the polemical incompetence it takes to offer such desperately hyperbolic vouching in this context. What you can or can't remember is irrelevant. Do a search like "paul ireland" jurisprudence on Google or Yahoo and check out the top result. Your abysmal performance in our discussions will be associated with your name for as long as there is indexing and archiving on the web and its successors. Welcome to your legacy.
PI: I’m in awe of your arrogance in suggesting your own poorly designed website as a reference. The funniest part is even on your own website, I destroy your claims that the war in Iraq is anything other than absolutely unconstitutional. I am more than happy to see my legacy in destroying your fallacious claims, and showing everyone what a fool you are. Also the irony is not wasted on me that someone who has virtually no knowledge, would have the unmitigated gall to buy a website named “humanknowledge.net”
PI: I have PROVEN that the role and scope of the US Military is solely for the DEFENSE of American ships and soil and for nothing else. Any case law you bring up to the contrary is irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land, and it defines the role of the military. If you want to discuss case law, you can look up Marbury vs. Madison where the first Supreme Court said that any and all laws, court cases, acts of congress, etc., which contradict the U.S. Constitution are AUTOMATICALLY null and void without the need for judicial review. Congress is given limited war making powers to be used in the DEFENSE of American soil or ships. They may not use this power except in such defense.
BH: Every single word of the above -- even the capitalized ones -- is already rebutted either in the above link, or in the subsequent message (to which you never mustered a response) at http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Paul_Ireland/2005-02-15.htm.
PI: See the response above. I destroyed your fallacious claims in our last encounter. Every single word of what I said is the truth, and you’ve failed to refute any of it then or now.
PI: Only congress has war making powers and may not grant such powers to the President. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional in its face
BH: "The Congress shall have power [...] [t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" Art I Sec 8 cl 18.
PI: Ahh, trying to misuse the “necessary and proper” clause again I see. Contrary to your derisive claims, the “necessary and proper” clause is not carte blanche for the government to make any laws it wishes. Congress is given the ability to make laws to carry out the specific items mentioned in the Constitution and nothing else. This means it can make laws regarding how the U.S. responds to a direct attack against U.S. ships or soil after Congress has exercised it’s Constitutionally mandated formal declaration of war. But it may not grant war making powers to the President. Nothing other than an amendment to the Constitution changes it. Not an act of Congress, not a Supreme Court Decision, not anything.
PI: there was no Constitutionally mandated formal declaration of war.
BH: The House voted 250-183, and the Senate 52-47, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678". Your position on the invasion would be unchanged if the text had met your definition of a declaration of war, so this complaint is specious.
PI: BZZZZ Nice try, but wrong again. Thanks for playing. Maybe you’ll get a copy of the home game. Congress can’t “authorize the use of the U.S. armed forces” in any way other than a formal declaration of war. The U.S. army does not answer the call of the UN, and as I said, all UN resolutions you mention are irrelevant.
PI: If you want to use MY DEFENSIVE military to make an unprovoked invasion of a nation that poses no threat to America, you are stealing from me and misusing MY military.
BH: Ah, the NonCoercitarian argument again, this time combined with your usual ignoring of the conjunction of Iraqi involvement with WMDs and anti-American terrorism. Sorry, but I'm a minarchist not an anarchist, and so the not-with-my-taxes argument doesn't work on me.
PI: As usual your claims of “anti-american terrorism” hold no water. I ignore them because they are irrelevant. Until you can prove that Iraq directly attacked an American city, or an American ship your claims are untenable. I am also a minarchist, not an anarchist, and my argument still holds up. The limited role, scope, and authority of the United States government prevent the U.S. military from being use for any reason other than for defending U.S. ships and soil from direct attack. The Military is not to be used at the whim of the president. It’s not to be used to defend any nation but our own. It’s not to be used to enforce UN resolutions or sanctions. The not-with-my-taxes argument is apt, and does work on you. Because if you use the U.S. military for any reason other than the defense of U.S. soil and ships from direct attack, you are misusing it, violating the U.S. Constitution, committing an act of unprovoked aggression using my military, and stealing from me.
BH: If as a SovereignTarian you believe that the signatures of kings and tyrants take precedence over individual human liberty in future generations, then you should note that King Faisal II's regime voluntarily committed Iraq to the United Nations Charter in December 1945. Thus your commitment to SovereignTarianism trumps not only individual liberty, but also the notion of contractual claims of sovereign states on each other.
PI: Your strawman must be getting tired by now. The sovereignty of a nation has nothing to do with how the people within the nation are treated. If they desire freedom, the responsibility of winning it rests on their shoulders. You are free to help with them, if you choose, but not free to misuse the US military. Joining the UN does NOT eliminate the sovereignty of any nation. The UN is NOT an authority over any nation. The U.S. does NOT answer to the UN, nor does any other nation on earth. Merely joining the UN does not mean you are under an obligation to disarm your nation if the Security Council says so. Only a person who supports unlimited centralized governmental power (a non-libertarian) would suggest such a repugnant idea.
PI: I do recognize contracts. No contract can give away sovereignty.
BH: Above you wrote that "Libertarians support individual, state, and national sovereignty". If individuals have sovereignty and sovereignty can nullify any contract, then you just discarded the entire concept of contract. That's an odd brand of libertarianism you're selling there.
PI: Rights are as immutable as gravity. You can neither take them, nor give them away. You can’t contract them away either. If I sign a contract with you saying I’ll be silent for a year or I owe you a thousand dollars, it does not mean I don’t have the right to speak. It means I’ve agreed to pay you a thousand dollars if I exercise my right to speak. Governments don’t have rights, only individuals do, therefore a government can not make a contract such as the one I mentioned above. Governments can sign treaties, but even these have limitations because no contract (including a treaty) signed under duress is a valid one.
PI: If the U.N. suddenly told America to get rid of our WMD's, what would you say?
BH: It's easy for me to agree that the U.S. should comply with any demand from the U.N. Security Council, because the U.S. has a veto on the Security Council.
But I'll even answer the hard question you didn't know how to ask. I deny that state sovereignty or state contract rights necessarily trump individual liberty. I'm not the one here fetishizing states as moral agents, that's you. You claim that states have absolute immunity from force initiation just like individuals, except on alternate Tuesdays when they're allowed to initiate force by abrogating the written agreements they've signed.
PI: All I saw was you saying you would answer the question, and then you avoided it completely. Whether or not the U.S. has veto power on the Security Council is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you think the UN has the authority to disarm America, and to send in inspectors to violate the rights of Americans in order to verify the order from the UN. Answer the question directly.
PI: I seem to remember not discussing things with you because you refused to answer questions directly. Until you answer whether or not America should comply with a UN directive to disarm, this will be our last communication and you will have proven the lack of courage for your convictions.
BH: I personally challenge you to identify any substantive question in your earlier correspondence with me that I didn't address. That correspondence is available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/messagesearch?query=ptireland , along with your final message (that was not a reply-to-all) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/31400. I don't bother rebutting people unless I address every substantive point they raise. By contrast, I quite explicitly remember you failing to answer these two questions even when I repeated them:
PI: What are you talking about? You dodged my question in the last paragraph of this conversation! Are you really that dense? The answers to my questions are either A) I think America should comply and allow inspectors from Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, etc. go into the Whitehouse, NORAD, Every military base, and every American home to forcibly disarm all Americans… or B) I’d tell the UN to screw off because we are under no obligation to do what the UN tells us to do.
Which is it?
As far as answering your questions, I don’t see why I should answer yours when you won’t answer mine, but hell I’m feeling generous so I’ll give it a shot.
In answer to your first question listed, I would say that equating a full-scale military invasion with taxing people to pay for a police force and judiciary is a childish, and insane undertaking. Not all taxation is force. For instance a gas tax to pay for roads is not compulsory. One can refuse to use gas to avoid the tax. Government has no legitimate authority to tax our rights. A gas tax is no different than a usage fee. So the answer to your question is no. There are no circumstances when I’d support governmental first use of force.
Next…
In answer to the second, I’d say No. People do not have the right to compel anyone to show up in court against their own will even if it could prove their innocence.
BH: I also wrote in my final message to you:
I stand for minimizing the overall incidence of coercion. You seem to stand for merely setting a good example of abstention from coercion. (I made this point in each of my last three messages, and each time you had no specific rebuttal to this diagnosis of our differences. If you ever come up with one, be sure to let us know.)
PI: You stand for minimizing the overall incidence of coercion and you intend to accomplish this with the unprovoked use of force and coercion? That is a lot like saying you want to promote abstinence through rape. It’s a lot like saying you want to balance the budget with deficit spending. It’s a lot like saying you want to uphold and defend the Constitution by directly violating it. You are a Republican, not a libertarian and this has always been the case.
BH: And since you never responded to my final message, every other substantive point in it could be claimed to count as one that you lacked the "courage of your convictions" to face. So it's laughable for you to claim you've made any substantive points in our correspondence to which I haven't responded. In case you haven't figured it out yet, my M.O. is to systematically rebut my critics pretty much clause by clause, and to never concede the last word. I don't say that having the last word means I'm right, but I never let anyone claim that I must be wrong because I yielded the last word. For you to try to claim I ever yielded you that last word is hilarious.
PI: You first say that I didn’t respond to your final message, and then say you never have a final message because you always make sure you’re the last person who says something. Did it ever occur to you that I became bored with your idiotic and pathetic attempts to debate? I beat you senseless with logic, reason, and verifiable facts but you just keep talking. Why would I keep responding to someone like that?
Thomas Paine said, “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” And that’s where we left off last. I got bored with you. Hoisting you with your own petard is only entertaining for so long. There’s no challenge in it.
PI: and your dishonesty
BH: That's an interesting mental tic you have there, in which you compulsively label those who disagree with you as "dishonest" or a "liar". If you really needed to, could you disagree with somebody without calling him a liar, like maybe to win a bet? Just curious... :-)
PI: You’ve got a knack for telling it like it isn’t. Those I label dishonest earned the label because after I proved them wrong, and gave them the facts, they continued to spread their false statements. What else would you call someone who says something they know to be false as you do with the Constitution and your claims of being a libertarian?
BH: I invite any reader here to anonymously let Mark Stroberg know if that reader has ever seen me be evasive or dishonest. They might consider me wrong or confused or obstinate or arrogant or pedantic, but I'd be surprised if anybody but Paul thought me evasive or dishonest or lacking intellectual courage.
PI: I’ve proven all of those in this very post.
PI: Saying, "If they just cooperated, they wouldn't have gotten hurt" could be used as a defense for rapists in your warped world.
BH: Your analogy fails under my libertarian values because a rapist is an initiator of force. The initiator of force here was Saddam, whose annexation of Kuwait by force was utterly unjustified by any pretext.
PI: Merely being an initiator of force is not enough. In order to use the U.S. military that force MUST be initiated directly against US soil or ships in order for it to be a valid. The U.S. military is not to be used at the whim of the President or even at the whim of Congress. It’s there solely to defend U.S. soil and ships from direct attack as I’ve proven time and time again.
BH: Your analogy should even fail under your state-fetishizing Sovereigntarian values, because Iraq was violating the United Nations Charter that it voluntarily signed in December 1945. But apparently you think that while violating a contract is always force initiation for individuals, it can fail to be force initiation for a state if the terms of the contract are inconvenient for your rhetorical purposes.
PI: Your post is dripping with irony. You, who support a global, all encompassing government that controls every aspect of every life on earth, accuse me of being a “state-fetishizing Sovereigntarian”. That’s cute. If anyone has a fetish for government, it’s you.
PI: Wow, as a UnitedNationsItarian who supports a global government,
BH: You're confused. I've been invoking the UN so much just to hoist you on the petard of your own anti-libertarian claim that the rights of collectives (i.e. states) regarding force initiation are analogous to -- and in fact trump -- the rights of individuals. If the UN never existed but all the other facts were still the same, my justification for the invasion would still hold up as liberty-maximizing.
PI: You’re the one who is confused and the one who has been hoisted, not once, but many times over. This is just the same, tired, rehashed, excuse for a strawman you’ve mentioned repeatedly. I’ve never said state sovereignty trumps individual rights. I did say that individual rights are to be protected by individuals and that state sovereignty applies even when a state doesn’t respect individual rights. If the people of Iraq want to exercise their rights freely, it’s not within the scope, role, or valid use of the US military to help them do it. This doesn’t change because the US happens to be in the UN or because Iraq is in the UN. It doesn’t change because the UN Security Council says so. It only changes when the people of Iraq overthrow their oppressors on their own, or with the help of individuals from other nations who want to help them without using the US Military.
PI: Libertarians support the right of anyone to own any weapon they choose. Merely having weapons does not make someone a risk.
BH: I didn't say it did. I've said repeatedly that the risk here came from the conjunction of WMD ambitions and support for anti-American terrorists.
PI: If Iraq wanted to develop nukes, neither the UN, nor the US has any say in the matter. You conveniently leave out the fact that Iraq has every valid reason on earth to hate the United States who invaded them without valid cause or provocation in 1991, and subsequently killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Not one of the terrorists supported by Iraq attacked America. Not one. The fact that one or two of the non-Iraqi people who attacked America happened to stay in Iraq or happened to know Saddam Hussein does not mean he supported them. In fact it does nothing more than suggest they asked him for help, but he refused. Saddam was a monster, but he wasn’t stupid. The only relationship between Al Queda and Iraq (other than the letter Q) is their mutual hatred of each other. Osama Bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein to be an infidel who lived in Palaces and murdered Muslims. Their hatred of each other is well documented for decades.
PI: Using your logic, I could punch someone in the face when I see a bulge in thier pocket because it MIGHT be a weapon, and they MIGHT use it against me.
BH: Instead of fantasizing about bulges in pockets and punching faces, you should construct a non-silly analogy that incorporates Saddam's support for anti-American terrorists.
PI: Actually you’re the one who seems to be fantasizing about bulges in the pants of other men, not me. This is why you want to attack them without provocation. Your repeated claims of “anti-American terrorists” are meaningless. Not one person who was funded by Saddam attacked America, and you have absolutely no proof to the contrary.
PI: More irrelevant quotes which have since been proven entirely false. I could care less what Al Gore, George Bush, Bill Clinton, or anyone else said about the danger posed by Iraq.
BH: I include the quotes for my own future reference, because I debate not only fringe anarchists who see the invasion as a statist conspiracy, but also liberals who see the invasion as a right-wing conspiracy.
PI: Since I’m not on the fringe, not an anarchists, and certainly not a liberal by any stretch of the rational mind, I don’t see how this applies to our conversation.
PI: The 9/11 commission which saw all of the evidence already proved that Iraq posed NO CREDIBLE THREAT to America.
BH: I like how you use all-capitals to subconsciously mark your weakest arguments for your readers. Like so many of the redundant assertions in your message, this one is false in each of the places that you repeat it.
PI: You mean like the way your false claims of “anti-american terrorists funded by Iraq” are repeated over and over? Sorry, but what I said doesn’t apply since it’s the truth. Iraq never posed a threat of any kind to America in the entire recorded history of mankind. Not for a single moment did Iraq ever pose a threat and no Palestinian terrorists funded by Iraq make it so. Nor does having Muslim terrorists from another nation spending time in Iraq. The difference is what I said is a fact, and what you say is unsubstantiated and false propaganda in an effort to rationalize your own anti-libertarian support of unprovoked deadly aggression.
BH: It's bizarre for a lover of individual liberty to say that our moral calculus changes completely at lines drawn on maps by the collectives known as states. I've never been to Maine or Iraq, and I don't know anybody in either place. How do the values of individual human liberty dictate that I should join with others to defend the liberty of Mainers under all circumstances, but never of Iraqis under any circumstances?
PI: Not once have I ever said that the individual rights of anyone are trumped by state sovereignty. Yet you repeat this lie repeatedly throughout this cerebral beatdown I’m dishing out to you. Individual rights are what created our government, and our military and what placed limits on its use. I know that the people of Iraq have every single inalienable right that we have in America. I wish freedom for them all. But this does NOT mean I’d condone the blatantly unconstitutional (and it is despite your untenable and baseless claims) use of the U.S. military in order to secure those rights. You’re free to establish a militia of your own and to do such, but not to use the U.S. military.
PI: What color is the sky in your imaginary world? Here on earth it's blue. On earth we have borders, and Libertarians respect those borders. What if I say the property lines around your house are just "imaginary" lines and I have decided I want to throw a party there?
BH: I asked you a direct question about Maine and Iraq, and you lacked the intellectual courage to answer it. Instead you made a content-free wisecrack about the sky, and then put quotes around a word that I never used to ask about a silly claim that I of course would never make.
PI: Oops, I missed the question buried behind your claims that I’ve said anything even remotely close to saying the people of Iraq aren’t endowed by their creator with the same inalienable rights as ours. In answer to your question…
The values of human liberty don’t dictate that you join to defend anyone at any time. Only your own conscience dictates such. If your conscience dictates that you should join with others to defend the liberty of Mainers, you should do so. If it dictates that you should join in the defense of Iraqi people, you should do that. The difference when it comes to using the U.S. military to carry out that defense lies in our borders. The role and scope of the U.S. military includes defending Maine, but does not include “defending” Iraq…if you can call an unprovoked full-scale military invasion of a nation “defending” it, which no rational person can do.
BH: As a libertarian and not a sovereigntarian, I of course think that the property lines of individuals have more moral significance than the borders of states. But I never made the extremist claim that state borders are "imaginary" or that the state should defend liberty to identical extents on both sides of its borders. I simply denied the opposite extremist claim that state borders mark the absolute end to the state's duty to defend liberty, and pointed out that this claim is not optimally libertarian.
PI: It’s not extremist to say that the state’s role in defending liberty ends where that government’s borders end. Only the individual’s role in defending liberty extends beyond the borders of the state. Also, while you may not be a “sovereigntarian”, you’re also not a libertarian, so you’re hardly in a position to discuss what they’d do. Your claims of being a libertarian are false. Joining the party does not make you one. Your score on the Nolan chart doesn’t make you one. The dictionary doesn’t make you one. Only your pledge stating that you don’t support the use of force for political gain (a pledge in support of the Non-Aggression Principle) does... assuming you actually live up to the pledge, which you don’t. Starting unprovoked aggression in the form of a war is a direct violation of your pledge. You’re NOT a libertarian. Again, this is not opinion, it’s fact. I thought I’d point that out since you always seem to confuse the two.
PI: If you want to discuss "bizarre" support for someone who claims to love individual liberty, let's discuss your support of a one-world-government that controls everything.
BH: Just because I believe that the state duty to defend liberty does not absolutely end at state borders, or that I mention the UN in a shorthand description of how blatant Saddam's behavior was, it does not follow that I believe in "one-world government".
PI: Don’t try backpedaling now. You mentioned UN resolutions as a valid reason why the US military would be justified in attacking Iraq even though it violates the limited role and scope of our military in our own Constitution. Only a “own world government” supporter would make such a claim.
PI: Every single part of your argument
is untenable and is an insult to those who are actually
libertarians.
The FACT remains that there is absolutely no valid libertarian justification for the invasion of Iraq. Those who claim such are fools, liars, or both. They are trying to violate Libertarian Principles and to twist the truth, and play word games in an effort to rationalize their extremely non-libertarian and warped world view.
BH: Your closing paragraph here nicely exemplifies so much of your polemical efforts:
· Devoid of both new argument and relevance to your opponent's specific assertions;
· Worthless vouching that every single part of your opponent's argument is absolutely unreasonable;
· All-caps labeling of your position as a "fact" (in a desperate effort to give yourself more confidence in it?);
· Questioning the honesty of your opponents;
· Positing secretly malevolent motives in your opponents;
· Anti-intellectual dismissal of arguments you can't answer, e.g. as "twisting the truth" or "word games".
PI: Each and every part of my arguments has had solid logic, verifiable facts, and reason. The usage of caps was so I could drum it into your empty skull that it was a fact, and not an opinion. You have habitually confused the two. I didn’t question your honestly. I flat out said you are dishonest. We’ve been through this before, and you’re saying things you know to be false. As far as dismissing your pseudo-intellectual attempts to rationalize and justify your wholly unlibertarian desire to initiate unprovoked (against America) aggression for political gain (such as overthrowing the leadership of another nation)
BH: This debate is going to end just like our last one: with me having answered your every substantive point, and with you calling me names and saying my answers aren't worth responding to. The only question is: before this predictable ending, how many times are you going to repeat the same old arguments that I've already answered?
PI: Actually, it’s going to end like our last one in that I will have answered every question you’ve asked directly, you will have avoided answering mine, and you will continue posting your inane drivel after I’ve moved on because you’re too thick-headed and stubborn to admit when you’re beaten. You will stupidly consider yourself the victor by attrition because you’re the last one posting.
I will end this conversation as I did the last having defeated your every claim, and made you look foolish. I will move on even if you’re too dim to admit defeat. You’re like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. I’ve cut off both your arms and legs and kept walking, while you claim it was only a flesh wound and shout for me to come back so you can bite off my kneecaps.
“Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.”
– John Adams