New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 6, 2005

Nick Gillespie and Bruce Caldwell discuss Hayek's Challenge, perfect information, and The Road to Serfdom today. Also: Prominent writers, thinkers, and researchers consider Friedrich A. Hayek's legacy.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | ...and let's not even get started… →

See all 9 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

fyodor|1.6.05 @ 12:04PM|#

For a second there I was confusing Bruce Caldwell with Bruce Campbell!

|1.6.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Is there now a written policy that every Reason article must contain a gratuitous shot at the Iraq War? I noted this one in the first article linked above:

"I think Iraq actually is a perfect example of this. You don't just come in and say, 'Here are all the institutions that have worked well in the West,' and expect overnight changes. That seems to me to be a contemporary example of the sort of hubris he argued against."

Where to begin to deconstruct such nonsense? First, the only "institutions that have worked well in the West" that are being imposed are the general ideas of representative government and free markets. I'd be astonished if Hayek had any problems with that. The details are being left up to the Iraqis, and in some cases there are going in directions that are at variance with our institutions. But that's OK, if it works for them

Second, I don't know any supporter of the Iraq effort who expects "overnight changes". There is a firm realization that getting to a functioning free state, starting from folks who have only known a fascist dictatorship, is going to take significant time. But we feel it's worth the time and effort because the alternative is to leave the Middle East as the cesspool of violence and terrorism that it's been for the last thirty years, and then hope against hope that the terrorists never get their hands on nuclear weapons.

So you guys don't like the Iraq War. Fine. But that doesn't give you license to make up strawmen to try and make it look like that's the obvious thinking person's position. As an almost-twenty-year subscriber, I expect better from Reason.

|1.6.05 @ 3:41PM|#

So you guys don't like the Iraq War. Fine. But that doesn't give you license to make up strawmen to try and make it look like that's the obvious thinking person's position.

Right, except that they have been for two years. They've been humping against it constantly, and it pervades a significant number of articles and posts. However, I can't solely blame them as major media and internet media are doing the same, so why not join the club, eh?

I mean, the media was considering the effects of the Tsunami on terrorism and the Iraqi deal a day after it happened. What's that you say now? A day after both sides were trying to link aftereffects to terrorism? Nothing like trying to make the story, huh?

I would expect better from Reason, but the more I read this blog, the more I seem to understand that the contributors to the current incarnation of the magazine are neither small l libertarians, nor thoughtful or talented writers.

On another note, I am sort of hoping that the constant screeching on the Iraq war from both sides will start to become white noise. That way, the reasoned, logical, flexible people can come to the fore and begin to discuss the situation rationally and calmly.

|1.6.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Mr. Bonforte,
What's the weather like on your planet? How are things going with your version of the War in Iraq?
Over here on this planet, it is almost beyond belief that anyone who's been paying any attention at all could utter such an absurdity as "First, the only "institutions that have worked well in the West" that are being imposed are the general ideas of representative government and free markets."
There's a whale of a lot of specificity in the imposition of those general ideas...
And lest I be accused of not substantiating the point, how about looking at what's going on, and what's gone on since shortly after the establishment of 'the Green Zone', with cellular phone service in Iraq. Hardly a matter of 'general ideas' being imposed, now is it?
And there are a host of other impositions, very few of which are the imposition of mere 'general ideas'.
Iraq is an excellent example of Hayek's theses regarding planning, order, and the development of cultural institutions -- and how top-down imposition is a failure at best.

Shirley Knott

|1.6.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Shirley Knott: "How are things going with your version of the War in Iraq?"

Slow but steady. See these refs:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005986

(One of the facts they mention is that 156 political parties are registered. Just like the old USA, huh? Yessir, we're imposing our model right on them....)

http://www.blogsofwar.com/archives/2004/10/10/good-news-from-iraq/

(And this ref points to a couple of dozen other links, so I'll stop here.)

So I'm on another planet? Well, here's my take on your position. You obviously think things are going horribly over there. So where are you getting your information? Most of mine is coming from people on the ground there. Most of which comes from reading web log accounts, etc, and a couple of which I have talked to personally. All those sources claim there are ups and downs, but far more ups than downs. They are quite optimistic, and the vast majority think our effort there is more than worth it.

Unless you are similarly getting your information from people who have their boots on the ground over there, I'd say you are the one on another planet - the Leftist Planet of Legacy Media.

And I'll ask you the same question I ask all the other naysayers about the Iraq effort - what's your alternative? To pull out now and let them revert to Islamofascist anarchy that would be the Palestinians writ large?

Or perhaps you think it would have been just peachy to leave Sadaam in power killing hundreds or thousands a month, subsidizing terrorists throughout the Middle East, garnering billions through the Oil for Food scam (with his willing accomplices in the UN) and using the money to keep trying to acquire nuclear and biological weapons?

Look, we're not playing patty cake here. We're at war with an ideology that considers Hayekian ideals their biggest enemy (and they're right). Spreading those ideals is the safest, surest, most humane way to defuse the violence there. Even if it takes twenty years or more (and I think it will take that long), it's more than worth it. We're engaged in this generation's version of the Cold War, and just like the old intelligentsia thought we were all reactionaries and simply failed to appreciate Stalin's genius, the current intelligentsia sneers at our willingness to spread our ideals instead of either (1) hunkering down and giving up, allowing a few thousand or hundred thousand to die every so often, or (2) nuking them all and letting God sort them out.

Even though I don't think that much of George Bush and his domestic policies, he's taking a brave and arduous course that has a fighting chance of solving a decades old problem without several million people dying in the process. The left ought to be saluting him for being as ambitious as Marshall and Truman after WWII (you are happy we shepharded Germany and Japan from dictatorship to representative government, are you not? Though it took decades?)

|1.7.05 @ 2:54AM|#

Joe Bonforte:

Is there now a written policy that every Reason article must contain a gratuitous shot at the Iraq War?

They aren't gratuitous if they're germane. The Iraq war was unnecessary for American security and liberty and was based on duplicity of a magnitude that it would surely have landed the proponents in prison if they had been corporate CEO's instead of government officials and neocon propagandists. The neocons, the chief proponents of the Iraq war had long argued that it would be a good thing for the sake of the Israeli government. Now, these points certainly merit categorizing the Iraq war as an example of inappropriate use of government force.

I'd be astonished if Hayek had any problems with that.

What?? I'm sure that Hayek would have huge problems with the government forcing us to support a war that is not necessary for our security and liberty.

But we feel it's worth the time and effort because the alternative is to leave the Middle East as the cesspool of violence and terrorism

It's exactly our government's intervention that made us the target of terrorism in the first place. The evidence is that our government's financing the Israeli government's occupation is what led to the 9/11 tragedy:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

The government's continued occupation of Iraq is needlessly killing Americans and putting us at greater risk.

So you guys don't like the Iraq War. Fine. But that doesn't give you license to make up strawmen to try and make it look like that's the obvious thinking person's position.

What straw men?? Also, unless you're just malevolent or against American liberty, it takes an absence of thought not to oppose the Iraq war.

|1.7.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Rick Barton: "It's exactly our government's intervention that made us the target of terrorism in the first place."

And right there is where we part ways, and this fundamental disagreement makes all other argument pointless. You believe this is true, I most adamantly dispute it.

The Islamic terrorists do not hate us for what we *do*, they hate us for who we *are* and the fact that our culture threatens their interpretation of the Muslim faith. Consider this quote by Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah: 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.' Or one of the Muslim terrorist group Islamic Army of Aden, which blew up a French frigate, who said said, 'We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.' Or the spiritual leader of Bali bombers, who said the way to prevent more bombing was easy - we all just need to convert to Islam.

For the extended version, read Civilization and its Enemies by Lee Harris. Or take a slight shortcut and read his essay on Al Queda's Fantasy Ideology, which is available here:

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Though I don't wish to pursue this any further because we are not even within shouting distance of common ground on which to argue, I will say that your faith that everything would work out just fine if we would leave them alone is touching. Did it never occur to you that we cannot conceivably prevent Middle Eastern fanatics from getting nuclear weapons (and possibly using them on us) if we have no engagement there? Whereas if we are engaged, we at least have a chance of preventing the incineration of our cities by those who have already proven that they are completely comfortable with mass murder. Thank goodness the people making the decisions are not as naive as you.

|1.7.05 @ 6:15PM|#

Joe Bonforte:

The Islamic terrorists do not hate us for what we *do*, they hate us for who we *are* and the fact that our culture threatens their interpretation of the Muslim faith.

The evidence is that, that is just not true and, just the opposite, we were the targets of terrorists from the Mideast because of the actions of our *government* in the Mid-east. In his 9/11 Fatwa Bin Laden told us the three reasons for the 9/11 attack:

1.US troops based to close to Mecca.

2.The blockade if Iraq.

3. American government support for the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

See also: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

"The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

And again, note that the evidence is that our government's financing the Israeli government's occupation is what led to the 9/11 tragedy. Note the findings of the 9/11 commission:

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

Note also that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were described as "loose Muslims, at best".

Also, if offending adherents to fundamentalist Islam is a root cause of terrorism, why haven't they hit Sweden or Denmark? The chief exporter of pornography into the Arab world is Scandinavia. Porn is an affront to the teachings of even mainstream Islam and the Islamic clerics complain bitterly, but of course there were no 9/11 type attacks on Stockholm or Copenhagen.

|1.7.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Joe Bonforte,

In parts of Lee Harris' essay, in the link that you provided, he seems to be trying to dance around the evidence that the fault lies with our government's hyper interventionism in the Mideast. This effort becomes really tortured and silly when he actually likens the Ethiopians to the Israelis and the Palestinians to the Italians! I read his book a while back, he asks some good questions but comes up with some pretty silly answers.

Also, did it ever occur to that our government's continued interventions make it much more likley that we will be the targets of terror than that they will somehow prevent certain people from obtaining nuclear weapons. It sounds like you're trying to rejuvenate the specter of WMD.

Your calling our government's misadventures in the Mideast, "this generation's version of the Cold War" is ridiculous and an insult to to the victims of Soviet communism and to those who contributed to its demise.

Lastly, won't you at least agree that the government should stop giving our money to the Israeli government to support their occupation, and to the Egyptian and Jordanian government's?