A while ago I wrote about why I'm not a libertarian - basically, you find a philosophical overload that takes you down the road to madness. That madness is on display at Reason, about the Wikileaks classified documents incident. It seems that the good editors don't like that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (rightly) said that Wikileaks had blood on their hands - the blood of Afghans killed by Taliban terrorists for cooperating with the USA.
If you have a strong stomach, go read. Pay attention especially to the comments; the word "collaborators" makes a prominent appearance, as does the word "Hiroshima". I'm probably with them 90% of the time, but this moral equivalence Bravo Sierra is dumb as a box of rocks.
Dudes, the Taliban are terroristic, murdering bastards. They stone women to death. The fill soccer stadiums for public executions. They sheltered al Qaeda. We are nothing like that. You actually need someone to tell you that?
So let me rephrase why I'm not a libertarian: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
3 comments:
I consider myself a libertarian on a number of matters foreign policy and the military isn't one of them. I don't believe in foreign adventures but threaten me and mine and I have a right to self-defense. If we have to use the 82nd Airborne for that defense then no complaint from me. The Taliban, Islamic jihadi, and their fellow travelers are a virus that are incompatible with any free society. they must be removed.
+1 to kahr40.
I'm more and more libertarian, but have not completely swallowed the pill. I think we have way too many foreign adventures, but I go somewhat beyond "threaten me and mine" to include "threaten my best friend and you may get something you don't like".
Implicit in considering that bunch a virus is that you have to kill off every last one. That's genocide of an unprecedented scale. Not saying it's unwarranted, just saying the truth.
The WikiLeaks bunch is responsible for the executions the Taliban are doing right now. I realize those idiots think they are serving some higher cause, but if this were a domestic court case in the US, they'd be an accessory to murder, slam dunk.
Mostly libertarian, but not die hard. You can actually have a core set of beliefs that make you [insert label] without believing in everything [label] believes in. Just ask the Christians. More denominations of them than any other "group" I think.
Post a Comment