Freedom's Just Another Word for Shut Your Goddamn Trap

Last month R.J. Rummel, the author of Death by Government and Power Kills, announced that because so many libertarians oppose the Iraq war, he is no longer a libertarian but a "freedomist."

This week we learned one of the differences between the two philosophies: freedomists don't want a free press.

[Via Anthony Gregory.]

Comments

[joe]

Is that parody? Americans responding to a nuked American city by lynching newspaper reporters? Continued presence in Iraq justified by weapons of mass destruction? The media cheeleading for an immediate withdrawal?

And look at the beard in the guy's picture - I think you've been snookered my an antiwar activist playing sock puppet.

[sage]

Indeed, that looks like Osama about to go before a judge. I think something is living in that there facial hair.

[Sarnath]

I smellz a parody.

[Ken Shultz]

"One has to be pretty far on the left not to see the media as biased against freeing Iraqi from tyranny."

Ha! Oh stop, already!

[thoreau]

In the past, Shannon Love has expressed strong opinions about what should or should not be reported. (Although I hasten to add that Shannon has never explicitly called for forced censorship. Rather, she has called for self-restraint by the media.)

I wonder what Shannon thinks about this.

[isildur]

It read like he wasn't advocating censorship, but predicting the dire consequences of continued MSM failure.

Which is a fine distinction, akin to 'This is a nice store; be a shame if anything happened to it.'

[Jesse Walker]

It read like he wasn't advocating censorship, but predicting the dire consequences of continued MSM failure.

Except that he headlined the piece "Censor the Media."

He also writes that "we cannot afford to have the media freely providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The stakes are too high."

[Pavel]

I actually just glanced over this guy's past articles and noticed a lengthy piece arguing that the immediate post WWII Polish government should be brought to book for expelling Germans.

I wonder if Herr Rummel isn't perhaps a bastard half brother of Ward Churchill. Parody or not, it sure gave me the giggles.

[joe]

"One has to be pretty far on the left not to see the media as biased against freeing Iraqi from tyranny. The bad news is generally highlighted, and the good news ignored"

Tell me about it! The weather coverage is no better. When it's going to be 60 degrees and sunny, you're lucky if you get the forecast by 20 minutes past, but when there are 20 inches of snow predicted, guess what leads the news?

The problem is, the media are biased against seeing Americans spending time outdoors, so they only tell us those stories that make the climate seem really awful.

I love freedom as much as any American, but if strict action isn't taken against the axis of meteorological defeatism, I'm afraid that some of the hateful, sickly, kitten raping weather forecasters might come to a bad end.

[Gary Gunnels]

We must destroy freedom in order to save it!!! 🙂

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Good one, joe.

[Call me snake]

Let this be a lesson to you all, don't question the Reason collective's vision of what libertarianism must be. Any attempt to find in Iraq anything other than Vietnam or the Brits in India or similar doomed efforts will be dealt with accordingly.

Of course, when you point out that the media (of all ideological stripes) concoct lies and clearly intend to use the 1st amendment as a shield, you must therefore be for censorship.

[joe]

snake,

If you please, what was the title of the article?

[David]

Love the circular logic Rummel uses. Americans should go to war to "defend freedom" regardless of cost(Always the sentiment of those who won't be doing any of dying). But don't critcize the war because Americans are dying in it, and the cost is too high. As an added bonus let's curtail our own freedom's so that we may do a better job of procuring freedom for strangers.

Ugh, when can we expect another planet-killer asteroid, things here are in serious need of a reboot.

[zeroentitlement]

If the Iraq Realignment Experiment is such a good thing, Snake and R.J., why aren't you both over there bringing freedom and Starbucks to the Iraqis?

"Oh...well, um...someone's gotta stay here and um...make sure the press doesn't say anything negative...um..."

Yeah. I see.

[Evan Williams]

It read like he wasn't advocating censorship, but predicting the dire consequences of continued MSM failure.

Not advocating censorship? Oh re-he-heallly...?

"In both World Wars I and II, the media reports on the war were strictly controlled. They must be again."

Boldface mine. That sure looks like an advocation of censorship to me.

"If the media continues its refusal to support the war..."

Good god. Is this fuckin guy for real? Heaven forbid people, or organizations as a whole, have opinions on shit. But when those opinions don't jive with your pet cause, then BAM, it's time to censor the fucking traitors.

The sweeeeeetest, most hi-larious part about the whole thing is that this crackpot has the nerve to call himself a "freedomist", even as he's calling for an abolition of the first amendment. Fuck me, I couldn't have written a better parody myself.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Let this be a lesson to you all, don't question the Reason collective's vision of what libertarianism must be. Any attempt to find in Iraq anything other than Vietnam or the Brits in India or similar doomed efforts will be dealt with accordingly.

Will be dealt with by providing an open comments forum where anybody can say anything they want about our articles, or by publicizing the writings of somebody who by his own description has had to change political affiliations because his fellow libertarians didn't share his vision, and who now wants to censor the news media?

Either way, I can see how that shows the Reason collective's closemindedness.

[Henry]

Dear Mr. Rummel,

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, you authoritarian fuckhead.

Sincerely,

The Libertarians

[Call me snake]

Dave, planet killer asteroid, that's a bit harsh. Let's not have a reboot, perhaps just close and reopen the application.

The appropriately named zero is invoking the new improved chickenhawk argument. It used to be you can't have an opinion unless you've been "in the shit," as John Kerry might say. Now you can't have an opinion unless you volunteer for direct experience.

Zero, how many positions do you advocate that you have no direct experience in? Example: By your logic you can't have an opinion on abortion unless you're either an abortion provider, have had an abortion, or have worked as a nurse or orderly in an abortion clinic. You're a hypocrite if you haven't gotten your "hands dirty."

Your position is risible.

[Mona]

The response here to Rummel's piece is why I have begun distancing myself from libertarians in general, and Reason in particular. The MSM is viciously opposed to liberating Iraq, and virulently anti-Bush. CNN's Eason Jordan gets his jollies claiming at the World Economic Summit in Davos that American soldiers have been targeting foreign and American journalists -- this is a lie, from which he and CNN have been trying to back away. But at the time Jordan made these remarks fawning Europenas let him know how much they adored his slander agasint his own country and its military. Yeah, we need more of that.

The kernel of truth in Jordan's remarks is that our military have largely come to despise the MSM, for its lies of omission and commission. Our soldiers can tell the MSM wants their mission in Iraq to fail. They are not amused; neither are they targeting journalists.

Censor the media? When its war reporting gives the enemy (who wants us dead) at Al Jazeeera and other pro-terorist enclaves fodder and comfort?
Yes; we are at war. The media foments lies and hatred of us and our troops, and if it won't stop, then WWII level censorship is, indeed, in order.

I've subscribed to this magazine for almost 25 years. No more. I now read libertarain-leaning blogs that are sane on terrorists issues, and not in bed with a hostile, anti-Bush left. I doubt I have not been missed, and won't be in the future, but I am sorry this can no longer be my ideolgocial home. It was a great comfort while it lasted.

For myself, I'm all about legions of ink-stained fingers on first-time voters and the move to democracy under law. If that makes me an unfit libertarian, then so be it. Hayek was never comfortable with the term, either.

--Mona--

[Evan Williams]

Let this be a lesson to you all, don't question the Reason collective's vision of what libertarianism must be.

Hmmm...lemme see...nope, damn, I can't seem to find one single definition of libertarianism or anything related to libertarianism that advocates the abolition of the first amendment.

If this hack wants to support the war in Iraq, be my guest. If he wants to make up a new political affiliation because the libertarians don't share his views, be my guest. None of that concerns me a bit. I fully support anyone's right to either agree or disagree with our actions in Iraq.

The problem here is that Rummel doesn't.

"when you point out that the media (of all ideological stripes) concoct lies and clearly intend to use the 1st amendment as a shield..."

There is quite a difference between "concocting lies" and "not supporting the US invasion of Iraq". Mr. Freedomist says that the media must support the war or be censored. Those who "concoct lies" are another issue entirely.

"you must therefore be for censorship"

There needn't be any half-assed jumps to conclusions here. Mr. Rummel explicitely states that he supports government censorship of the media. There is no question, no gray area: RJ Rummel is "for censorship".

[thoreau]

Whatever one might think about the war, Rummel was pretty explicit in his calls for censorship.

As to Reason allegedly being closed-minded and knee-jerk anti-war, can somebody remind me why Ron Bailey and Michael Young are allowed to write for a magazine that allegedly only pushes the lefty party line on Iraq?

[matthew hogan]

"It used to be you can't have an opinion unless ...Now you can't have an opinion unless ...."

I think those who write articles entitled "Censor the Media" (with censor-media in the url], or those who defend/excuse it are not in a particularly good position to castigate others for (allegedly) asserting that one can or cannot have an opinion on something.

[Call me snake]

Excuse me, Cavs, I'm searching for where I wrote "closemindedness."

My point is, you cats at Reason seem to be quite tenacious in defining a "political affiliation," libertarianism, that seems to me to be amorphous.

If this dude had not publicly broken with the true faith and had only called for media censorship, would it have made H&R?

As Dwight Yoakam once said: "I may be slow, but I ain't blind."

[Evan Williams]

Mona:

I'm sure Reason is crying in their collective beer over losing your $20/year.

The best part is that, as soon as you begin to disagree with some of their viewpoints, you throw up your arms and refuse to read it anymore. That takes a whole lotta intellectual courage, to be sure.

"Duhhh, wait a minute: they're not reinforcing my own beliefs? They disagree with me? I'll have none of this! I'm gonna go where I don't have to argue with anyone and everybody agrees with me!"

I hope you enjoy your "libertarian leaning blogs that are more sane on terrorism issues". I'm sure that they will reinforce your convictions and inflate your ideological ego sufficiently, for this is where Reason and libertarianism in general has failed you.

God forbid, someone disagrees with the assertion that the "war on terror" includes conquering and rebuilding some toothless sandpit. What fools they are disagreeing with MONA!

Buhbye.

[Isaac Bartram]

If this dude had not publicly broken with the true faith and had only called for media censorship, would it have made H&R?

I dunno about anyone else but I'm thinkin' that calling for media censorship is a pretty major break from the "true faith" by itself.

[rememberer]

Mona,
I have a vague memory that you threatened to "leave" months ago for about the same reasons. Don't keep teasin' us, hon -- just leave already.

[Jesse Walker]

Just to make sure we're all on the same page:

* If you headline a post "Censor the Media" and argue explicitly in it for censoring the media, it's unfair to write that you favor censorship of the media.

* If you criticize someone for advocating censorship, on the other hand, you're trying to suppress him.

* If a well-known scholar who until recently called himself a libertarian calls for censorship, a libertarian blog will not consider this newsworthy unless the guy is pro-war.

* If you work for a magazine whose members publicly take a wide variety of perspectives on the Iraq war, you're part of a "collective" that's trying to enforce a uniform vision of libertarianism.

* But that doesn't mean you're closed-minded!

Anything I should add, Snake?

[joe]

The media forments hatred of our troops? Oooooo-kay.

Mona, if you have difficulty with the concept that a person can support a certain goal, and simultaneously oppose a large, expensive operation by the federal government to achieve that goal, maybe libertarian blogs aren't the best place for you to find an ideological home.

Anyway, we get your point: clap louder, or Tinkerbell will die.

[Xrlq]

Like Joe and Sarnath, my first instinct was to smell a parody. However, I followed the link from his profile to hawaii.edu/powerkills and found more, equally incoherent stuff there. I suppose there could be a jokester at the University of Hawaii maintaining a well-developed mock site, but I rather doubt it.

Much as I'd like to write this off as a dirty trick by the LP's answer to Karl Rove, I'm inclined to think the nutty professor is for real.

[thoreau]

You know, I'm not all that big on purity tests. I'm actually inclined to apply the small-l libertarian label to almost anybody who wants a government that's significantly smaller than the current one.

The problem is that this guy doesn't just miss a few questions on the purity test. In one crucial area he wants a government MUCH bigger than the current one: Press censorship. And press censorship isn't just a single regulation, it's a regulation with a feedback loop. A free press is generally regarded as a useful check on the government. (See, for instance, Thomas Jefferson's comments on the matter.)

[Pavel]

As for myself, I'm all about legions of ink-stained burka-clad women superimposed over a crying bald eagle against a background of the twin towers collapsing...

In fact, if that isn't on the next cover of Reason, I'm cancelling my subscription.

This place has become an echo chamber for people who tolerate (or even more perversely, enjoy) reading opinions that differ from their own. In fact I know several lefties who, upon receiving their monthly issue, skip straight to the first Bailey, Young or Freund article and read it while wearing a hair shirt and whipping themselves violently on the buttocks.

Frankly, it's disgusting.

[sage]

"In fact I know several lefties who, upon receiving their monthly issue, skip straight to the first Bailey, Young or Freund article and read it while wearing a hair shirt and whipping themselves violently on the buttocks."

You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

[David]

Evan, Ouch! But I agree.

Besides, the beauty of libertarian debates is loose structure that allow people to choose their own beliefs. There are articles on this site that I agree with, and one that I don't.

One notion that I don't get is that Libertarians should be pro-Bush. Neither party is especially worthy of support by those who favor small government and limited state interference.

I think what Zero was trying to say is that it's easy to espouse a viewpoint when you don't have to back it up with personal sacrifice.

[zeroentitlement]

>>>Zero, how many positions do you advocate that you have no direct experience in? Example: By your logic you can't have an opinion on abortion unless you're either an abortion provider, have had an abortion, or have worked as a nurse or orderly in an abortion clinic. You're a hypocrite if you haven't gotten your "hands dirty."

Your position is risible.

[Pavel]

I've only been reading since about 2000 to Mona's 25 long years of bitter harvest, so I have to ask. Has this magazine been anything but anti-______ (current President)?

I guess a safe rule of thumb would be: if you think there's good odds of electing a President you'll really like, you probably should cancel right now and save yourself the disappointment.

[isildur]

Heh. What I get for skimming and assuming the best of people.

More careful reading makes it clear that I was wrong -- he isn't making the (relatively) sane argument that there will be backlash against the MSM. He is, in fact, making the looney-tunes argument.

Here's the problem with 'WWII level censorship,' and I'm making a huge leap here by assuming that censorship was okey-dokey in WWII, something I wouldn't stand behind in any case:

In WWII, there was a point at which we could declare victory, and expire 'emergency' measures.

When do we 'win' against terrorism? I've long waited for someone to tell me how we'll know the war is over. When do we have a V-T Day? When does the NYT run the headline, 'VICTORY!'?

Without an answer to that question, any call for 'wartime censorship' is really a call for perpetual censorship. Just like any call for a temporary emergency provision to 'help fight this war' is really a call for permanent provisions.

Hell, I'd still like to know how we'll know we've won the War On Drugs. Adding another perpetual war with more 'temporary' and 'emergency' provisions feels a lot like Mao's perpetual Revolution in China. Sure, the state will go away and we'll live in collective harmony, only we have to win the Revolution first, right? And by definition, we never actually win the Revolution.

[fyodor]

I'd like to say something about owning the definition of libertarianism etc. I see libertarianism as a pretty well-defined philosophy based on specific principles that can be applied to a variety of issues (some issues have no particular libertarian "answer"). Personally, I don't claim to tow the libertarian line at all times. When I don't, I say that I diverge from the libertarian line on whatever issue. I find no shame in that.

Regarding Iraq, the basic underlying principle of libertarianism is the non-initiation of force. Iraq did not initiate force against the US. (There are other libertarian ideas, corollaries if you will, that apply, but I shall exclude them for brevity.) Now, some folks who believe in libertarian principles as they apply to many other issues feel they could foresee danger down the road in leaving Iraq alone and thus they justify preemptive force to avert this danger. Whatever the potential merits of this position, it simply does not comport with libertarian orthodoxy. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

To those who take a nonlibertarian view of the Iraq situation yet still consider yourselves libertarian, I say fine. The label "libertarian" need not imply that you take the libertarian approach to absolutely any and every issue to which it can apply.

But please, PLEASE, do not whine that there are other self-described libertarians who differ with you on Iraq or even that they might (HORRORS!) appeal to libertarian principles in explaining why they differ. I won't ever claim that being more in agreement with libertarianism on a particular issue than you makes me automatically right. Please have the cajones to admit that maybe, just maybe, your position on the issue truly is less libertarian. It is, after all, just a fricken word.

Lecture over.

[Phil]

For myself, I'm all about legions of ink-stained fingers on first-time voters and the move to democracy under law.

And we appreciate everything you've sacrificed to achieve it.

Oh, wait. You didn't sacrifice anything. Iraqis did.

Asshole.

[Anvilwyrm]

Oh, wait. You didn't sacrifice anything. Iraqis did.

$220B and the lives of friends is nothing? Good to know.

[Ken Shultz]

Ta Da!

...And Mona reappears.

"The response here to Rummel's piece is why I have begun distancing myself from libertarians in general, and Reason in particular."

How long have you been posting that now--hasn't it been more than a year already?

"I now read libertarain-leaning blogs that are sane on terrorists issues, and not in bed with a hostile, anti-Bush left."

...Does the name Michael Young mean anything to you? What do you make of Christopher Hitchens?

" Yes; we are at war. The media foments lies and hatred of us and our troops, and if it won't stop, then WWII level censorship is, indeed, in order.

How could you read Reason for twenty-five years and really believe such a thing?

To me, it's ironic. I feel like I've been all but chased out of Ronald Reagan's Republican Party by these weird new kids on the block, and here you are suggesting that you don't feel as libertarian as you once did because of left-leaning libertarians.

I feel like Socrates who, when walking up the court house steps, bumps into an old friend. "What are you doing here?" Socrates asks. The old friend replies, "I just brought a charge of impiety against someone." "What a coincidence!", Socrates replies, "I'm here because I was brought up on charges of impiety."

Is all the impiety you seem to see really about the War? Are there other issues too, or is that it?

[Ayn_Randian]

Rummel's for real, for everyone who doesn't know. He's a writer for SOLOHq, as am I, and we have differing opinions on the war. His freedomist garbage is just his way of appeasing Linz Perigo. I am considering debating him.

Perhaps, a different answer would be, if the MSM is giving away positions and tacitcal movements, then they are the enemy. But merely reporting bad news that may or may not get American Soldiers killed (disclosure: I'm an American Soldier) isn't reason enough to censor. Other than out-and-out fraud, there's no reason to censor, and even then it's questionable. Rummel's just your typical pro-war Objectivist, making the rest of us look bad (granted, we've done a pretty fine job ourselves).

[Franklin Harris]

Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Ayn Rand Institute makes Objectivism look bad, which I say as a former Objectivist turned neo-Hobbesean. (And now I've got Max Borders making me look bad.)

[Mo]

Censor the media? When its war reporting gives the enemy (who wants us dead) at Al Jazeeera and other pro-terorist enclaves fodder and comfort?
Yes; we are at war. The media foments lies and hatred of us and our troops, and if it won't stop, then WWII level censorship is, indeed, in order.

Mona,
Have you watched any MidEastern news channels? They have no problems showing anti-American, vitriol-inducing stuff to their target audience. In fact, as far as America hating images go, we're fricken pikers. Last month in Egypt I spent an hour watching the news and I wanted to vomit. Not because of the views of the anchors, but because the stuff they show is really, REALLY graphic. It makes our war coverage look like Sesame Street. It was very depressing and anger inducing.

Granted, if I was a foreigner, watching Christine Amanpour would make me want to kill Americans too, but I don't think the MidEast media needs any help to piss their viewers off. If you want to blame anyone for supplying images and reasons to foreign media so that others will hate us, look to the White House. If you're upset that the media isn't portraying the war as you think it should, watch Fox. People that dislike us aren't looking for Paul Krugman articles for reasons to hate Americans, they can find the dead bodies and orphaned children on their own.

Our media is trying to get people here to oppose the war, so the people pressure our politicians and pull them back. I don't deny that the majority of media outlets oppose the war, but with the run-up that this war got, can you blame them. I see valid reasons for supporting the war, why do most war supporters ignore the valid reasons for opposing it.

Mona, no one here opposes free, democratic Iraqis, that's a noble end. It's the means that most people have issues with.

[Gary Gunnels]

Mona,

Please, quit playing the whining victim.

[Gary Gunnels]

The fact is, of course, that this element of the hawks don't want reality or truth represented in the news (any more than certain elements of the doves do), they want whatever props up their ideology to be represented there. Mona, etc., are in other words intellectual thugs.

[thoreau]

Mona, if this is why you no longer read this blog, then how did you know to post here?

Criticize all you want, argue all you want, but something rings hollow when we hear the complaint "That's it! I'm out of here! And this time I really mean it!" for the 50th time.

[grylliade]

Yes; we are at war. The media foments lies and hatred of us and our troops, and if it won't stop, then WWII level censorship is, indeed, in order.

No, actually, we're not at war. Congress has not declared war; it just authorized the use of force. What we're fighting in Iraq is just a police action, or a conflict, or something. If those of you who are pro-war want all the nice things that come with it, like censorship, then have Congress declare war. Don't fuck around with the Constitution anymore with this Mickey Mouse bullshit about "conflicts" and the role of the president as commander-in-chief. Go whole hog, since the fate of the nation is on the line.

Not that Mona will read this, since she's undoubtedly made her point and moved on. Just remember, kids, censorship is okay when it's not you being censored. When it's someone you disagree with, then censorship is perfectly acceptable.

[Ken Shultz]

If there was a graph showing the ideology of every commenter, I suspect we'd see that, ideologically speaking, the commenters are fairly evenly spread here--that's part of what make the place so much fun.

Doesn't it seem like there are almost as many pro-War commenters as there are anti-War commenters, or is that just me?

...It's not like we chase people off for what they believe anyway.

P.S. Has anyone seen Dan lately?

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Snake,

Don't call me Cavs.

Ken Schultz,

Good question. I'm going to try and track Dan down.

[Dan]

Tim tracked me down.

I stopped reading "Hit&Run" a while ago. I figure I've already memorized the script. 🙂

[Phil]

$220B and the lives of friends is nothing? Good to know.

I'll bet you $1,000 that Mona has sacrificed neither of those things, since a) she doesn't have $220B, and b) other people's lives are not hers to sacrifice.

[Eric the .5b]

If there was a graph showing the ideology of every commenter, I suspect we'd see that, ideologically speaking, the commenters are fairly evenly spread here--that's part of what make the place so much fun.

Sometimes, I get the impression that libertarians, as opposed to conservatives and liberals using H&R as a sparring ground, are a shrinking minority in the comments. (Witness all the people yesterday taking the Yemeni government's claim of reforming terrorsts via religious debate as, ahem, gospel truth and then trying to make partisan spin from that starting point.)

Managing to alienate a fuckwit like Rummel is a worthwhile, if small, sort of collective achievement by libertarians. (Try not to think too hard about that last phrase...) Can we next work on alienating the people who whined about spending taxpayer money on going after Al Queda and the Taliban?

[Ken Shultz]

"I stopped reading "Hit&Run" a while ago. I figure I've already memorized the script. :)"

You were a good sparring patrner Dan--I kinda miss seeing you around. When you get the Republican script memorized, come back and explain it--I can't make heads or tales of it anymore.

[Kevin Carson]

According to the textbook theory, "democracy" means the government is responsible to the sovereign public. It's kind of hard for the public to act as sovereign master when their alleged "servants" regulate the flow of public discussion.

Just when, pray tell, is it acceptable for the public to debate the wisdom of government policy? Fifty years later, when nobody cares but the historians? If we're supposed to suspend critical judgment in wartime, it sounds like a mighty strong incentive for the government to make sure were always in a war.

Rummel, apparently, belongs to the Adam Yoshida school of "democracy": allow just enough formal democracy for the leadership's policies to be ratified in a plebiscite.

Mona, if you're really for imposing censorship on those opposed to the war, your version of "libertarianism" was NEVER worth wiping my ass with. Anyone who favors censoring political debate of any kind is just plain chickenshit scared that the policies they favor are too fucking ass-brained to stand up in the marketplace of ideas.

[Gary Gunnels]

Kevin Carson,

The more speech the better. Mona has turned out to be exactly what I thought she always was; as a statist at heart who, when she can't win the debate via the merits of her arguments, turns to the coercive power of the state to "win" the debate.

[D Anghelone]

What do you folks think of Wendy McElroy? She is philosophically anarchocapitalist but quite pragmatic and here-and-now in her FoxNews columns.

Is every libertarian who decides to deal with the real world a phony or a sellout?

[Evan Williams]

Is every libertarian who decides to deal with the real world a phony or a sellout?

Of course not. I just dashed through this entire comments thread, and, well, I didn't see a single instance where anyone said anything remotely like that.

But, hey, that there's a sweeeeeet strawman you just built.

Danglehorn, I'm sorry, but, it takes a really special kinda idiot to not know the difference between "dealing with the real world" and "advocating censorship of anyone who disagrees with you". As a small-L libertarian, I don't always exist in the abstract. I have mixed views on the environment, on children, on transportation, on borders, etc. And I "deal with the real world" all the time.

But any supposed "libertarian" whose idea of "dealing with the real world" is silencing those who disagree with you via force, well, that pretty much is the precise definition of "phony and sellout".

Even if Rummel wasn't an ex-libertarian, he'd still be an intellectually disgusting human being. I can put up with a fair amount of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, and hubris---but the minute someone tries to silence my argument by force, I draw the line.

[D Anghelone]

Danglehorn, I'm sorry, but, it takes a really special kinda idiot to not know the difference between "dealing with the real world" and "advocating censorship of anyone who disagrees with you".

And you are the only such idiot present. But you clearly enjoy blowing it out your ass, so...enjoy.

[Call me snake]

How about Cavonarola?

Don't tell me you couldn't lead bonfires of the vanities with copies of the Weekly Standard....

I apologize in advance for the above joke, for which I will probably receive cosmic punishment.

[kevrob]

I'm with grylliade. Since war has not been declared, any "power to censor" that may or may not exist due to a state of war is dormant. I supported the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, but think we should have declared war at some point, there, too.

As for R. J. v. libertarian purists, a minarchist state could ditch those Federal laws - the Logan Act, parts of the Neutrality Acts, etc. - that make it illegal for individual U.S. citizens to start or join their own freelance units. So Captain Rummel and his Howling Freedomists could have filibustered their way all the way across Mesopotamia, and their homefront supporters could have donated all the funds needed to equip them. There would still be the problem of Americans choosing to back unsavory groups. The Provisional IRA comes to mind.

Kevin