New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 24, 2005

There's plenty of rousing Sousa playing, but is freedom actually on the march? Michael Young finds cause for optimism in recent anti-Syria protests in Lebanon.

In related news, Syria has announced that it is "committed" to a withdrawal of its troops in Lebanon (technically a reiteration of their existing position, but probably not insignificant), and the pro-Syrian prime minister has suggested he's willing to resign, though later reports have him denying (or at least qualifying) that statement.

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.

← Egypt: Kifaya? | Main | Who Gets the Right to Remain… →

See all 38 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.

|2.24.05 @ 1:38PM|#

" Is American democracy an island, an isolated city on the hill that can be an inspiration but must not otherwise challenge the status quo buttressed by the prescriptions of national sovereignty?"

Basically, yes, more or less.

A Middle East policy based around a "passionate attachment" towards or against something, like Israel for example, is bad thing.

Similarly, a policy based on a passionate attachment to the inclinations (even good ones) of the Beirut/Cairene bourgeoisie, is not a good idea either.

|2.24.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Michael Young assumes that a U.S. presence is both necessary and sufficient to bring about change in the Middle East. Is it?

|2.24.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Gary, reread the last sentence of the piece.

|2.24.05 @ 3:04PM|#

Sufficient:
perhaps, if you can assume that people everywhere RESPOND well to consensus government, (much as they respongd well to the free market) even when they really had little or no previous interest in it
(C'mon...how many Germans, Italians or - still less - ANY Japanese actually CARED about the previous democratic experiences of their cultures, in 1945?)

Necessary:
probably...if you wanna be certain of it, and wish to see a timely change.

Well Worth It: For sure!

|2.24.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Michael,

Note that the last sentence of the piece includes the notion that the people of the middle east must initiate the change. I think that that is an extremely important part of the equation.

Warren|2.24.05 @ 3:23PM|#

I don't cotton the "libertarians are divided on this" assertion. Libertarian principals are quite explicit in the just and proper role of government. Accordingly, the only thing United States defense forces should be used for is (wait for it) defense of the United States. The proposition that US interests are advanced through the destruction and reconstruction (in our own image) of foreign lands, is pure canard. Just as trading liberty for security, regardless of whether security can so be achieved, is irreconcilable with libertarian principal. So too is military adventurism and nation building, regardless of how effectively we achieve our aims through such means. (And I am a long way from being convinced that such is, or even could, ever be the case)

The presence of those in the libertarian camp whom disagree with me, I regard as a cancer. An anathema and threat to the noble principals of libertarianism. Much in the same was as the Religious Right has usurped conservatism, delivering it unto the forces of evil.

|2.24.05 @ 4:06PM|#

Well, Warren, I guess if it wouldn't make me a cancer, I would suggest it sounds at least plausible to me that removing hostile regimes might be part of defense. I might suggest that there's nothing in libertarian principles that suggests that it's anathema to consider the argument that you might, having defeated a hostile regime, want to think about aiding that country so it's enraged (rightly or wrongly) people don't attack you. I might suggest that if our options are increasing domestic intelligence or invading another country, a preference for invading other countries might not be inconsistent with libertarian principles, either. Nor to wonder whether, if foreign aid is bribery, and bribery occasionally useful to defense, foreign aid might not be sometimes a part of national defense.

But, wait. I misread you. It's not anathema to libertarian principles -- it's anathema to the libertarian principals. These individuals find non-pacifist inclinations anathema, and so describe those who think of them as evil. Gotcha. Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far, but ok, I catch what you're throwing. (Apologies, obviously, if I'm misunderstanding a satirical post)

|2.24.05 @ 4:39PM|#

Who cares if what we did in Iraq brings about good things in the Middle East, America has been damaged in all sorts of ways from this war. Sure liberty and freedom would be nice for Iraq and Syria, but I don't see much of that happening even if Syria pulls out of Lebanon or the new Iraqi government is successful. Just new autocrats in power with different names, methods and allegiances

|2.24.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Spur,

Did you read the article? Or the post? Whether you agree or not, you shouldn't simply ignore the fact that some people are suggesting that progress there helps us. Disagree if you will, but don't just pretend you didn't hear. As for new autocrats, well, that's the question, isn't it? Is it new autocrats, or is freedom on the march?

|2.24.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Michael Young,

It doesn't undermine my statement at all.

Andrew,

C'mon...how many Germans, Italians or - still less - ANY Japanese actually CARED about the previous democratic experiences of their cultures, in 1945?

They cared a lot actually; this was especially true of the Japanese. You'll find that the post-WWII parties used as inspiration the experiences of the free political parties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you ought to know something about the things you comment on before you comment on them.

Anyway, I can see that your response was a wholly unsubstantiated answer which can now be justifiably ignored.

|2.24.05 @ 5:14PM|#

Michael Young is a neocon, which means he must be wrong!!!!!11111one
JK, great article.

Gary - Would political parties in Japan been able to emulate free parties had they not been liberated by the US in 1945?

Warren - A very important argument to consider, but one must also consider whether or not spreading democracy actually will contribute to the security of the nation. I know most people on this blog and libertarians in general think that foreign intervention is a direct cause of US insecurity, but that's an empirical judgment (one that may be correct, even though I must admit I disagree with it): my point is that libertarian principles do not theoretically rule out any "foreign adventurism." One needs to look at whether or not the act of democracy promotion will contribute to or detract from the security of the nation to determine if it is justified under libertarian principles. So it's an empirical question, not one we can use a theoretical basis with to reject any democracy promotion offhand.

|2.24.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Crash,

Well said. It's unfortunate that so many libertarians seem to believe there is an orthodox libertarian position on this issue that can arrived at a priori. No such definite position exists -- one can be a libertarian and come down on either side (the same, I might add, can be said of abortion, religion, stem cells). Demanding that sort of thickheaded, intellectually dishonest dogma helps nothing and no one.

|2.24.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Crash,

Some people need a primer on what necessary and/or sufficient conditions are.

Necessary ex.: To live, a monkey must have air.

It was not necessary for the U.S. to invade Japan for it to have a democracy.

Sufficient ex.: A monkey may need air to live, but that is not sufficient to keep the monkey alive (obviously the monkey has to imbibe water, eat, etc.).

It was not sufficient for the U.S. to invade Japan for Japan to be a democracy.

I suggest for further reading White's Discovering Philosophy.

fyodor|2.24.05 @ 5:34PM|#

It's unfortunate that so many libertarians seem to believe there is an orthodox libertarian position on this issue that can arrived at a priori.

Okay class, listen up.

Yes, there is "an orthodox libertarian position on this issue that can arrived at a priori" from a strict adherence to libertarian principles. That does not mean that said position is necessarily the correct one (except to a purist who believes that all orthodox libertairn positions are inherently correct for being the orthodox libertarian position, but that includes very few of us), nor does it mean that someone who does not conform to the orthodoxy on this (or any) particular point may not feel justified in identifying himself as a libertarian in a broadly speaking sense. But, conversely, just because libertarians don't always toe the line to libertarian orthodoxy doesn't mean that such an orthodoxy cannot be concretely derived from the premises of libertarian principles.

Got it now?

|2.24.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Gary,

Are you answering the question? How would Japan have developed democracy without US intervention? Your original question asks something similar about Iraq. If this is an honest question, how can you state an answer without support? Or was it simply rhetorical, in which case it's clear why you would substitute disdain for logical support. Just asking ...

|2.24.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Fyodor,

No, I don't. It's not that I'm saying that Warren's position is false and must therefore not be the libertarian position. I'm not just misusing the terminology. I'm saying that libertarian principles do not lead inevitably to pacifism or non-interventionism. They do lead to non-imperialism, but this is different than non-interventionism or being opposed to preemptive strikes or whatever. Self-defense might involve attacking a hostile power. A priori, you cannot arrive at the conclusion that developing democracy elsewhere will never, ever be part of a proper self-defense.

There are a priori positions that libertarianism leads to: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free trade, what have you. But non-interventionism isn't actually one of them -- it depends on a posteri information as well as other beliefs that have nothing to do, one way or the other, with libertarian first principles.

fyodor|2.24.05 @ 5:56PM|#

you cannot arrive at the conclusion that developing democracy elsewhere will never, ever be part of a proper self-defense.

I don't know if it's worth arguing about, but I disagree. The notion that invading a country to install democracy can be part of a proper self-defense is akin to saying that social programs can be a proper part of law enforcement because they would alleviate the "root causes" of crime. I can sympathize with someone feeling like such reasoning is consistent with libertarian principles in a broad sense, but clearly not in a strict or orthodox sense. Libertarianism means the non-itiation of force, which means you don't attack a nation until they either attack you first or exhibit clear signs of being about to. Similarly, I believe that taxing pollution is consistent with libertarian principles in a broad sense, but I would never try to claim that such a position is consistent with orthodox libertarianism.

FWIW.

|2.24.05 @ 6:05PM|#

FWIW. I see what you're saying (though I disagree) -- just wanted to point out that I'm not just misusing the terms to mean "this is what I think or don't think"

fyodor|2.24.05 @ 6:33PM|#

I see what you're saying

Count thy small victories -- YES!!! :-)

Warren|2.24.05 @ 7:08PM|#

ryan, Crash,
I'll plead guilty to the charge of 'Overly Vitriolic'. But I was sincere in it.
[Apologies for misprints/typos. I run these through the spell checker, but anytime small errors make it to the post, I just say screw it. Most of the time I find a post correcting a misspelled word more annoying than helpful]

fyodor,
Thank you. You have articulated the point I was trying to make much more effectively.

|2.24.05 @ 7:14PM|#

"Most of the time I find a post correcting a misspelled word more annoying than helpful"

Amen

Incidentally, I haven't figured out how to run a spell checker on a post I am writing, not have I figured out how to make writing appear in italics. Writing in italics makes it a lot easier to see what is a quote from somebody else, and what is your rebuttal.

|2.24.05 @ 8:51PM|#

"As the debate continues in the U.S. and elsewhere over Bush's merits and demerits, and over his dissembling, indeed lying, before dispatching forces to Iraq, the Lebanon example shows the advantages of selective interpretation."

The Bush Administration misled the American people into thinking that the Iraq War was a war of self-defense. I suspect the reason I haven't gotten over this yet is because it seems to me that the American people are yet to realize that the President effectively bamboozled them into sending their children off to be maimed and to kill and to die.

"Should the United States pursue its democratizing path, particularly in the Middle East? It is remarkable how Bush's critics, both from the political left and libertarian right, found themselves in a bind after the Iraqi election."

Speaking from the libertarian right, on what basis can I commend the President? Am I to commend the President of the United States for gambling with the lives of thousands of American troops and the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians for the sole purpose of supporting liberal movements in Lebanon and elsewhere?

The election in Iraq was the result of the occupation of Iraq--if you can see my contention that this was not what the American people signed up for, I can see that. It is not clear to me, however, that the current protests in Lebanon are a function of the Iraq War. It seems to me that the popular reaction to the assassination in Lebanon is a reaction to the assassination in Lebanon. The people of Lebanon have suffered occupation for a long time--even with the advantage of close proximity, who is to say that the Iraq War focused their outrage?

Even if it did, is the galvanization of liberal movements in Lebanon sufficient justification for killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and sacrificing hundreds of American lives?

...It is not clear to me that anyone can foresee how a war in one nation will ultimately effect the liberal movements in third party nations. Reverse Domino Theory looks like a big gamble to me. If someone is insinuating that the President was right to gamble with the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians, then I wish he or she would come out and say so in plain English. Personally, even if this proved to be the turning point for Lebanon, I wouldn't commend our leaders for gambling with the lives of American troops and civilians in Iraq any more than I would commend a man for betting his life savings on a hand of blackjack just because he won.

Iraq was not collaborating with Al Qaeda. Iraq did not have WMD. Iraq was a threat to the United States, but it was less of a threat to the United States under the watchful eye of the coalition than it is now. Under the watchful eye of the coalition, Kurdish democracy took root and grew.

Syria is a true state sponsor of terrorism--Syria supports an organization that murdered American Marines in their sleep. I might have supported a war on Syria.

In what way does any of this put me in a bind?

|2.24.05 @ 9:15PM|#

ryan,

Of course I am answered the question. You just may lack the faculty to understand the answer.

The U.S. invasion was neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing democracy in Japan.

Why wasn't it a necessary condition? Compare the following:

To live, a human must have air.

For Japan to have a democracy, it had to be invaded by the U.S.

Clearly, humans must have air to live; but there are innumerable ways that Japan could have established a democracy without a U.S. invasion. Thus a U.S. invasion was not a necessary condition.

Now lets look at the sufficient condition issue:

Do you honestly believe that an American invasion was a sufficient condition for Japan's democracy to develop? I don't. Quite obviously numerous factors were involved in this development, one of which may or may not have been the American invasion.

White would argue that your claim is similar to someone who states that because one has a Walkman one can listen to music. But clearly that is not sufficient condition for listening to music; for example, one needs a tape or a CD, batteries or another power source, one needs the ability to hear, etc.

Andrew,

By your usage of the terms necessary and sufficient conditions I'll note that its obvious you are ignorant as to their philosophic meaning.

|2.24.05 @ 9:42PM|#

"Incidentally, I haven't figured out how to run a spell checker on a post I am writing,..."

Kwais,

I don't believe there is a spell checker here--use Word's and paste the comment in. Preview apostraphes, etc. before you post.

"...not have I figured out how to make writing appear in italics. Writing in italics makes it a lot easier to see what is a quote from somebody else, and what is your rebuttal."

It's using tags. If I tried to show you how the tags work, you wouldn't be able to see it; it would just make invisible italics.

look at this link, it'll show you how to do italics and bold...

http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/html/article.php/3478151

|2.25.05 @ 12:09AM|#

Michael, I for one think you wrote an overall good article.

I'm saying that libertarian principles do not lead inevitably to pacifism or non-interventionism.

Yes yes yes. It has always amazed me that so few libertarians see this. But many libertarians, like Europeans, would like to pretend that international relations is not The Jungle.

A Jungle it is. Deal with it.

The Bush Administration misled the American people into thinking that the Iraq War was a war of self-defense.

I know Michael Young wrote an article in the past where he expressed just that sentiment. No argument there, Ken (and thanks for the link on HMTL formatting, I needed that too).

You don't have to condone the invasion of Iraq (I don't) -- nor do you have to like Bush -- to be glad that at least something positive came out of it all. And something positive has come out of it, despite some people's incapacity to grasp it. Self-assertion can be contagious. (and I hope we don't have to go down the "Iraq elections were not self assertion" road yet again).

The US defeat of Japan in 1945 was neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy in Japan. Nonetheless, the US occupation was the cause of democracy's return in Japan.

If anyone would like to nay-say me on this from strictly "logical" grounds, I will point out: there are many, many places in higher mathematics where neither "necessary" nor "sufficient" conditions for a given outcome can be shown to exist, and yet the outcome does exist. Laplace and Fourier transforms provide ample examples.

Logic, like statistics, can be either a powerful or a badly misused tool. Misused logic, combined with moral disdain -- now that is a cancer.

|2.25.05 @ 1:26AM|#

pragmatist,

No one is misusing logic here as far as I can see. I was asked if the U.S. invasion was necessary for the development of democracy in Japan. It clearly wasn't. Of course now you want to change the topic so as to make my answer look unreasonable.

The US defeat of Japan in 1945 was neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy in Japan. Nonetheless, the US occupation was the cause of democracy's return in Japan.

No, it was one of several causes. History teaches us this lesson: if a people are unwilling, you cannot impose democracy on them. Clearly if you could, Haiti would a flowering democratic republic by now. Indeed, I would say that Japan did most of the heavy-lifting in this regard (just like the uber-optimists re: Iraq argue that most of the heavy-lifting is for the Iraqis to do). Its strange how the uber-optimists/America-exceptionalists want to have it both ways.

|2.25.05 @ 1:34AM|#

I'm sure that this thread is dead, but I just had to get a couple of things off of my chest:

Ken S.: Bravo! Well done! I (quite literally) could not have said this better myself.

Re: Japan and Germany. Regardless of necessary and sufficient whatnot, the reason that we invaded Japan and Germany was not to democratize them. It was to put down quite-real enemies of this country. We invaded to end wars, not start them. We rebuilt the countries as a result of the invasions, we invaded as a result of our needs. Granted we could debate the need to enter WWII in Europe, and obviously I don't believe that the war in Iraq advances our national security, but I hope my point regarding Japan and Germany is made.

|2.25.05 @ 1:58AM|#

BLG,

Its something of a historical myth to say that we re-built Japan and Germany. They largely re-built themselves.

pragmatist,

Yes yes yes. It has always amazed me that so few libertarians see this. But many libertarians, like Europeans, would like to pretend that international relations is not The Jungle.

Of course it can be a jungle, but it clearly is not always the jungle (as you imply). Anyway, you are confusing methods with outlook.

|2.25.05 @ 3:03AM|#

On the question of whether there is/should be an orthodox libertarian position on a particular act of foreign policy, I see 4 ways to look at it:

The first two are for the more philosophically-inclined types:

1) Start from some set of axioms and reason it out rigorously. For some reason libertarians, unlike liberals and conservatives, frequently assume that politics must be like mathematics.

Now, maybe the 100% objectively true answer would be that the invasion in question is unjustified. Or maybe the 100% objectively true answer would be that overthrowing dictators is cool. Not being one of the philosophical types, I don't know what The One True Analysis of the Axioms would give.

But once we've got that worked out, well, half of us will be heretics and the others will be True Followers of the One True Way.

Whoo-hoo!

2) Say that although we all agree on the basic principle of self defense, whether a particular action counts as self defense in a messy world depends on too many details. The One True Answer is therefore in practice unknowable, even if it exists. (Sort of like predicting the behavior of a classical chaotic system in physics: In principle the motion will be deterministic and hence knowable, but in practice you'll need too many digits of precision to work it out accurately.)

In that case we can argue over the facts but agree that everybody here is still a libertarian.

The next 2 are for the more pragmatic types:

3) Stop even trying to pretend that there is One True Libertarian Answer (Hallelujah Praise Rand!). A libertarian need not accept the Axioms of Truth, he or she need only share a general belief that, overall, government needs to be much smaller and be careful how much it meddles. Of course, one could disagree over whether a particular action is indeed compatible with that spirit, but by removing this notion of The One True Answer you approach it from a more tolerant frame of mind.

In practice 3 is functionally equivalent to 2, but I still think there's an important distinction of mindset.

4) Finally, there's fyodor's approach. Take the anti-war (at least in Iraq) position, slap the "libertarian" label on it, and acknowledge that reasonable people might stray from the reservation. The word "libertarian" then becomes simply a label, not a value judgement.

I'm inclined toward 3, but I recognize the merits of 4 and 2.

|2.25.05 @ 7:25AM|#

I just crapped in my shoe.

|2.25.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

If there were "innumerable" ways, besides external invasion, for Japan's totalitarian Shinto regime of 1944 to develop into a democracy, you could surely name one. And make sure it's one that's even remotely plausible.

Good luck.

gaius marius|2.25.05 @ 10:51AM|#

The notion that invading a country to install democracy can be part of a proper self-defense is akin to saying that social programs can be a proper part of law enforcement because they would alleviate the "root causes" of crime.

exactly, mr fyodor. the only way invading iraq or bosnia or syria makes sense as self-preservation is if you see iraq or bosnia or syria as already constituent (even if unrealized or indirect) parts of the american empire.

i submit that this is exactly what the white house -- and americans broadly -- believe. the world is our domain to govern and police and subordinate. peoples who find freedom neither sufficient nor necessary (thank you mr gunnels) shall be made to have it because they should live as we do, under our laws, with our ideas. our conceit rises to such heights that we assume freedom (whatever it truly means) to be the universal good, uncriticizable. and whatever quarter of those peoples that already agrees with us is to be portrayed as representative of the entire population, "everywhere in chains", thereby making our imperial wars missions of liberation.

what horseshit this is. what i would give now for one edmund burke.

to be glad that at least something positive came out of it all. And something positive has come out of it, despite some people's incapacity to grasp it. Self-assertion can be contagious.

is this truly what we're reduced to? hanging our hats and patting ourselves on the back for a rickety little plebiscite? what does it matter? what has changed? anything?

a resounding NO. shi'tes march in the streets flagellating themselves and calling for a crown for sistani. READ IT:

A top leader in the United Iraqi Alliance gave a speech to a crowd of thousands of Shiites in downtown Baghdad that underscored the Shiite sense of destiny after elections and the role that partisan Islam may play in Iraq.

Before he began his talk, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq party, raised his hands above his head and proclaimed that "even if they cut off my hands and my legs, I will crawl to you, Hussein."

The crowd roared with approval.

Hakim said he looked forward to a government in which all sects and ethnicities were represented.

"You are here today in the new era of Iraq, writing the epic story of Iraq and ... your commitment to the instructions of the marja'iya (the ruling council of Shiite clerics), especially his excellency the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani," Hakim said. "Yes, yes, we are with you, Sayyid Ali," he said, referring to Sistani.

The exchange that followed filled the air with screams and chants.

The crowd: "Yes, yes, we are with you, Sayyid Ali."

Hakim: "All the people are with you, Sayyid Ali."

The crowd, at fever pitch: "A crown, crown for the head of Sayyid Ali al-Sistani."

During the speech, the coffins of three members of Hakim's Badr Brigade - the militant arm of his party - were carried through the crowd. Shiite leaders have accused the Iraqi police of torturing and killing the men earlier this week because of their political and religious affiliations.

The case has become a flashpoint for Shiite fears that Sunni politicians in the current government have rehired members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

With the coffins passing by, the crowd yelled, "Death, death to the Baathists."

the idealism in thinking that this shabby little exercize constitutes something more than a fruit stand on the road to civil war should be shameful and unconscionable -- and would be for decent and modest men.

gaius marius|2.25.05 @ 11:44AM|#

the thing that really destroys me about mr young and others of his mind is this:

The killing of Hariri removed all the stops, dissolving fear and allowing the pleasurable indecorum of the incanted insult. And while many in the United States might today be jaded when it comes to liberal impulses in the Middle East, increasingly there are those in the region who see recent elections in Iraq (and democratic movements in Ukraine or Georgia) as deeply relevant to their own fate.

Like Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe, Bush has shown in the Middle East that simple, indeed simplistic, ideas can go a long way when expressing the frustration and anger of populations afflicted with tyrannies refusing to accord them even minimal respect.

the implication is that unrest is good. riot is good. war is good. and not good in the pursuit of some end -- no, an intrinsic good, a moral end. for that is what freedom is, is it not? the right to the prerogative to change all that is to suit you as your reckless fancy dictates. schiller said best what mr young means: "law has reduced to a snail's pace what could have been an eagle's flight." therefore law, tradition, inconvenience must go.

what this view of the world advocates is not the end of tyranny as it was once conceived. few elizabethan englishmen saw in their queen a tyrant. burke loved freedom, but mourned the death of aristocracy in france: the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.

no, tyranny has been recast to mean anything that is not the rule of the mob. it is the final triumph of sturm und drang, overwhelming and destroying our inherited british ethic of lawful compromise and self-restraint. and if violence is what comes then love it -- for it is the sting of freedom. as herder exclaimed, "i am not here to think, but to be, feel live!" this is naked schwarmerei.

the danger of this should easily be seen. again burke: "They made and recorded a sort of institute and digest of anarchy, called the Rights of Man." what rule, what law is to stand in the face of freedom? clearly, when not law but freedom is the virtue, none long can.

This suggested the extent to which the Lebanese today understand (as many should have, but not so long ago didn't) that autocracy is the triumph of the aberrant and the promotion of the inferior.

i submit that many lebanese -- many sensible people the world over -- understand that autocracy is neither aberrant nor inferior nor evil a priori, though it certainly can be. people in lebanon long understood this because they endured a civil war between parties who each acted without restraint for the pursuit of their freedom. they understand -- as americans have forgotten -- that the pursuit of freedom without law and limitation is endless war and the basis of tyranny.

fyodor|2.25.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Pragmatist,

But many libertarians, like Europeans, would like to pretend that international relations is not The Jungle.

You may as well say that our inner cities are jungles and that's why we need to suspend civil rights and prosecute the Drug War. Same logic.

fyodor|2.25.05 @ 12:58PM|#

thoreau,

I was going to address all that you said in great detail, but I think for brevity I'll primarily address just this one comment:

"In that case we can argue over the facts but agree that everybody here is still a libertarian."

Has anyone really argued over who really is a libertarian? It certainly wasn't me, and I personally didn't read what Warren said in that manner either.

As I've endeavored to explain, I think there is indeed a correct libertarian position on many matters, but that's different from saying that someone is a heretic or something if they don't adopt that position on a particular matter.

Therefore, rather than claiming that Warren (or anyone else) has no right to state what the orthodox libertarian position is on a matter, I think it would make more sense (and spare us this discussion) to say why one disagrees with the orthodox libertarian position on that matter.

To sum up the detailed post I'm abandoning, everything in the damn world is ultimately subjective and there's always some way to justify coercing someone else as a form of self-defense. That doesn't mean that we cannot distinguish between what is or isn't consistent with libertarianism in a strict sense, or else the philosophy has no meaning.

And remember the old saying that principle disciplines bias (or whatever the exact wording is).

That's all. Now be thankful I cut my longer post and won't paste it! :-)

|2.25.05 @ 3:03PM|#

crimethink,

And make sure it's one that's even remotely plausible.

Quite obviously you don't understand the exercise at issue. It has nothing to do with plausibility, or certitude, or predictability, etc. (indeed, you make the same mistake that others have made so far, a mistake which I have already pointed out at least twice). I suggest you read a basic primer on logic.

Was is it necessary and/or sufficient that the U.S. invade Japan for the latter to become a democracy? No. The issue of plausibility doesn't enter into that question.

Now, if you want to ask a question re: plausibility, well, fine; but again - as I've already stated in another post which you appear to have either failed to read or have simply ignored the content of - that wasn't the question addressed to me.

I have to admit crimethink, your wilful disregard for reality gets a little frustrating sometimes.

|2.25.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Gary Gunnels,

Okay, I'm still having trouble. Is it necessary to insult someone's intelligence to answer a question, or is it sufficient? When you're trying to answer a worthwhile question (like "should we invade Iraq" or "was it helpful to have invaded Iraq" or whatever), is it necessary or sufficient to engage in pedantic arguments about whether a certain word has been used in the manner required by formal logic?

Here's my best attempt to use what I've learned. "In order to have a worthwhile discussion about the implications of Lebanese protests and Iraqi elections on American foreign policy, it is not sufficent to keep one's eye on the ball by avoiding pedantry and name-calling and dismissing folks as cancers. It is, however, necessary." Okay, how'd I do? Points for trying?

Sorry, but I'm just not sure what's achieved by your focusing on formal definitions -- most of us are interested in plausibilities and practicalities.

|2.25.05 @ 4:25PM|#

ryan,

Neither of course.

It isn't a pedantic argument. It was - again - a question posed to me. You know, if you don't like the question, ask another one, but don't blame me for answering the question I have been asked, blame the person who asked the question. Blame crash.

Now this is what, the third I've written this, and you still don't get it. Shouldn't I start questioning either the truthfulness or intelligence of an individual who continues to ignore the obvious? I think I should.

...most of us are interested in plausibilities and practicalities.

Except for crash apparently.

That's the last time I repeat myself on this matter. If you can't or won't get it, well, its no longer my problem.