Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE

I’m all for the free market, man, but no amount of free market was going to defeat the fascists of the mid-twentieth century, nor is it going to defeat the current manifestation of the very same contiguous historical stream.

Why was Switzerland, a tiny country right in the middle of Europe, able to avoid not one but two wars on that contenient?  If Hitler were really bent on world domination, how could tiny Switzerland survive?  While we cannot know for sure, I submit there were two reasons.  First, as the saying goes, the Swiss don't have an army, the Swiss are an army.  There is no way the Nazis could suppress 500,000 Swiss sharpshooters causing havoc by assassinating their officers and harassing Nazi troops everywhere they went.  The second reason is that the Swiss were the Nazi's bankers.  Yeah, distastfeful considering some of the wealth was expropriated from Jews that the Nazis mudered, but the Swiss made themselves indispensible to the Nazis through trade.  

Because fascism is central planning, it would have eventually collapsed same as communism did. 

If we go all the way with the stateless society argument, collective defense is much more effective than when it is under state control.  After all, wars are usually won by capturing the enemy's capital and forcing its government to capitulate.  That outcome is eliminated when there is no state to surrender.

As far as the goals of the "Islamofascists", how do they have a whole lot more money than Castro who was backed by the USSR and Ho Chi Minh who was backed by China?  Why is it that suicide bombing occur almost exclusively in occupied countries?  I also guess that every Muslim, or at least the vast majority, have dedicated their lives to the war on the West. 

Yeah, there are very dangerous fanatics in the Middle East.  There are also dangerous fanatics here in America.  Gard's point is that a foreign policy that empowers those people, one that makes folks say "hey, he's right about the Americans", is dangerous.  Is it apologizing for bin Laden?  Absolutely not.  He's an evil murderer.  But Western (not just the U.S.) interventionist foreign policy has made him credible in the eyes of many Muslims.

Copernicus,

I don't mean to beat up on you, but "they want to take over the world" was the same rationale used to involve the U.S. in WWII and the Cold War.  Neither time did it prove true.  History may not repeat, but it rhymes.

Oh I'm sure that bin Laden despises our way of life in the West, however Bin Laden & just about every Islamic terrorist group has said that the cause of their terrorist attacks has been the US govt's meddling in the US particularly the bankrolling of Israel. Seems to me that when more then one individual & group is saying basically the same thing people ought to be listening & taking note.

You miss the important point. Even if everything Osama Bin Laden says is tripe and all he wants is power, what matters is the people who listen to him and agree with what he says believe him. As long as they believe that he is fighting the U.S. for its support of Israel and the Occupation of the holy soil of Saudi Arabia they will fight with him. Why would someone be willing to sacrifice their life for political power in a suicide attack if they won't be alive to use that power?

Wow, quite the series of responses. I appreciate everyone taking the time to engage me. I’m guessing you won’t be surprised to know that I pretty much disagree with everything. Pretty much; not entirely. However, I’m not quite so self-indulgent as to engage in a point by point response to all your criticisms. That would be too boring for all of us. There are, though, just a few remarks I’d add.

First, only Pandyne really addressed my main point, about the double standard in taking Bin Laden’s propaganda at face value. And, you have a point, but wouldn’t you agree that that point is only relevant to the pawns: the feckless and restless youth in Birmingham or Brooklyn who – as Gardner would say – "get themselves all ginned up" watching jihadi videos online? But these are the very same people who, in another time, would be joining the Weather Underground or the IRA, or their ilk. For reasons we don’t need go into here, youth all too often is a breeding ground for nihilistic rebellion. Not to say that such people can’t be dangerous to the life and well being of others, as the London bombings demonstrated. But the real power brokers of Islamofascism don’t waste their time with this sort of thing. So, yes, the propaganda matters in that way, but I’d still say its deeply mistaken to take it at face value. That would be turning a blind eye to what’s really going on.

Second, I don’t entirely disagree with those of you who say that the Islamofascists oppose U.S. policy in the Middle East, but that opposition is not out of some humanitarian gesture, but is motivated by straightforward geo-realpolitik: if they can get the U.S. to withdraw, they can more easily achieve their own theocratic fascist objectives. (It might be a good point to add here that I'm a Canadian, so please don't accuse me of U.S. jingoism, or whatever.)

Finally, I suspect that at the end of the day my biggest difference with most of you is that I don’t assume that people always act rationally. Perhaps that’s the underlying premise of libertarianism. But history shows me that people act viciously irrational at times. Cults of collective insanity come over people for a variety of complex reasons. However, where we do have common ground, I believe that while the state may not be necessary for that to happen, it can be a powerful instrument in enabling such craziness. And to presume, as Citizen X does, that just because you get rid of your state, all the fascists and dictators are going to get rid of theirs strikes me as just a bit fanciful. The desire for dominance can't just be wished away. And no one has addressed my point about the dangers of Islamofascists havng control of states with nuclear weapons.

For a chilling reminder of what's at stake, check out the book, excuse the cheesy title, Masterminds of Terror: it was a book produced from and about an interview conducted by a prestigious Egyptian journalist of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh in Pakistan – obviously before they were finally apprehended. In discussing their planning of 9/11 they say quite matter of factly that they’d considered flying the planes into nuclear power plants. They chose otherwise not out of some moral scruples, but because they preferred to maintain their leverage with the option of escalating the death yield. As I say, it makes for a chilling read.

If you think Obama and Kerry are bad news statists, you’re going to be in for a rude awakening once the Islamofascists have control of nuclear armed Iran and Pakistan. It’s all nice to quote Washington on foreign entanglements, but when people are dedicated to conquering or killing you -- not because of your foreign policy, but because of their religious zeal -- it’s better to pay attention and take a little action in foreign affairs.

Be C'ing you.

Copernicus

Hi!

Thanks for the + vibes on the pods, and for the added thoughts on radical Islamists, bin Laden, and the long-term threat they do or do not pose to freedom in the US. I'm just in a spare moment at work right now, but want to mention a couple of things.

Regarding bin Laden's rhetoric, you must have missed the times I've mentioned the statement "whether or not bin Laden's four points were used honestly, or for ulterior motives in a larger attempt to destabilize the mid-east is irrelevant" or words to that effect. The point I try to make when I discuss bin Laden's four points (as he stated them in his recruiting move for his attacks on the US) was that they were what he said to those he was trying to recruit. The main gist of my own point is that he said nothing to those potential terrorists about US culture. Whether he was being honest in his intentions is not relevant to my larger point, which is what he was trying to do to his audience. In order to generate support for his cause, he concentrated on matters that had nothing to do with US religion or culture, and everything to do with 1) US bases on sacred Saudi soil, 2) alliances with the so-called "zionists" in Isreal, 3) the embargo against Iraq that bin Laden said was killing innocent kids and women and 4) the fly-overs of Iraq made by US/UN military. I've often mentioned that, whether we look at bin Laden's four points as coming from honest intentions to generate support or we look at it as propaganda to further his own goals, the main lesson remains: terrorists joined his cause based on those points, not their hatred of Playboy magazine, or HBO, or auto racing, or Christianity. The attacks were conducted to get the US out of mid-east affairs -- otherwise those who joined bin Laden would have done so for completely different reasons than what attracted them to his cause: which were the four points used in his recruiting papers.

As far as the conjecture of some who study mid-east affairs and radical Islam, again, I say this: if radical Islamists have as their end goal to somehow "take over" a state, or convert millions of Americans to become Muslims, then terror attacks against Americans seems to be the exactly wrong way to win people over to the cause, doesn't it? What WILL win more potential radicals over to the cause of more TERROR ATTACKS, however, is the US becoming more and more involved with killing innocent civilians and destablizing governments in the mid-east. There's no way around it in my view: US interventionist policy is putting more innocent Americans at risk of periodic terror attacks that come as retribution against the US policy. Without large armies, the only way for the Islamists to strike back is to kill innocent Americans. They have said that if US policy doesn't change it will happen more, and yet neo-cons (not necessarily you, by the way, I talk of William Kristol and others of his ilk) continue to say that in order to STOP tarror attacks, US troops need to be killing more people in the mid-east. Not a long-term solution to the problem, and also not constitutional.

Just some thoughts. I'd love to write more, but need to fly for now.

All the best! It would be interesting to read your ideas on potential solutions.

Sincerely,

Gard

Hey Citizen X and Gard. Thanks again for taking the time to reply. How about I'll reply to each in turn.

First, CX: Sorry, dude, you seem to have taken it a bit personally. No offense intended. I did have the impression that you were positing such a scenario of mutually stateless foreign policy. I’ll try in the future to be more judicious in my reading. All I’ll say in response to this last post is that I don’t agree with your assessment of the Afghan war as futile – though it certainly is exhausting. People, though, have amazingly short memories. After the founding of the modern country in 1919, Afghanistan enjoyed a stable succession of constitutional monarchs until 1973. The country was once considered generally secure, tolerant, and hospitable to foreigners. You can go back and read backpacker travel books from the 60s about what a great place it “is” to go and hang out in the gardens of Kabul and smoke opium and eat dates. Whatever. You get the point. Contrary to popular myth, it has not been a basket case its entire history -- despite what the media types always claim.

Obviously one can debate the appropriateness of nation building in principle. But, don’t you know, if Bush had just gone in and carpet bombed the place the very same “liberals” who are wringing their hands today would have been blowing a gasket in that case. In some ways, considering the long history of the U.S. propping up useful dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere, the approach in Afghanistan and Iraq was really quite noble. The execution of the endeavour was of course another thing. But I’m not sure we’re going to be able to agree here, so maybe at a point debate becomes counterproductive. Still, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.

Oh, and incidentally, forgot to mention it last time, but I really enjoyed your podcast on fractional banking. Really great stuff! Thanks for that.

Now, Gard, nice to hear from you and, in a manner of speaking, meet the man behind the voice. Yes, I enjoy the podcast immensely. In fact, I just moved into a new place and had to endure that awful first day, when everything needs to be unpacked and all seems a shambles. But I just played about ten of the podcasts back-to-back and had a whole bunch of great laughs and fine tunes. So, thanks for getting me through that day.

So, okay, I do understand what you’re saying and why you consider your position as consistent, where I’d suggested a double standard. And I hate it when people drift from tangent to tangent as though they’re completely incapable of a sustained thought, so I don’t want to be doing that myself. But, I guess I’ll just offer one more objection – and it is really one of the premises of your argument, so not entirely tangential.

As a point of order, I’m going to use the plural first person pronoun here because (as neocon as this may be) I don’t see this as being about the U.S. or NATO and the Taliban or Al Qaeda. To my mind, it is a battle between the best of the Enlightenment (particularly the Scottish Enlightenment) tradition and the forces of theocratic fascist barbarism. And, while I appreciate why you may resent the appropriation of your wealth to support the massive U.S. military, I on the other hand am eternally grateful that, yet again, Americans from all walks of life have been willing to sacrifice their treasure and lives far from home to fight back this most gruesome of statist fanaticism. But I digress.

My point is that you say we should withdraw from the Middle East because Bin Laden and Inc. use our presence to score propaganda points that rallies feckless youth to acts of murder. But why would we believe that that would be the end of it. I mean, India hasn’t been engaged in any of the activities you describe, but has been a constant target of Islamofascist terror for decades. Nor has Thailand, but entire Buddhist villages have been annihilated by Islamofascists in southern Thailand. So, these litanies of offenses you cite are hardly necessary to stir up fascist hatred. What if we withdraw then Bin Laden starts decrying how Western trade policy corrupts the purity of Islamic culture. This is a complaint that does go back to the modern roots of Islamofascism in the writing of Qutb – a writer very influential on Bin Laden. And, after all, we saw the extraordinary violence unleashed over the bloody Danish cartoons. So, then, what, again, we can’t risk riling up the potential terrorists? So, after we allow them to dictate our foreign policy, then we allow them to dictate our trade policy? All because we don't want to risk upsetting the fascists? What comes after that? Do they start telling us how we live in our countries? Do we have to start accommodating domestic demands for Sharia Law? Where does that end? 

I know that the slippery slope is a cheesy argument, but that doesn’t make it wrong. We have to draw the line somewhere. And, where ever you draw it, eventually, with fascists it is going to mean war. I’d rather fight them now, while we still have the unquestioned superior fire power, then wait until they are able to entrench themselves in a state with its taxation and industrial (not to mention nuclear) capacity, when the human cost would be far vaster for all.

If that makes me a neoconservative then so be it. As the man said, give me liberty or give me death. Because, you can’t have both.

So, it occurred to me, since I live in British Columbia, I should be signing off with:

B C’ing you.
Copernicus

Recent events have inspired me to revive this forgotten forum thread. While I share Gardner's incredulity regarding so-called airport safety, I continue to be amazed by his (your) feigned naivty and panglossian denial about what it's really all about. Christopher Hitchen's Slate column this week likewise turns a whithering eye on airport security incompetence -- and when Hitchen's gets whithering run for cover. Unlike Gard, though, Hitchens has a realistic understanding of what's really going on and at stake. That Gardner can hardly bring himself to use the terms "terrorist" or "Islamist" without breaking into snickers doesn't bode well for a libertarian position, I think. It seems to me that the very first liberty of all is the freedom to live unmolested by the coercion and violence of others. I would never deny the real coercion and theft of the state, but to mock other, far more dire dangers, just because it doesn't fit into a prefabricated libertarian worldview is a serious failure of wisdom and insight.

For the interest of anyone here who takes matters of fascist mass murder a little more seriously, I offer below a link to the Hitchen's piece. He always has something of value to say on these matters and it is always well grounded in solid empirical evidence. First, though, I can't help quoting his concluding paragraph:

"What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets. The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don't get the point prefer to whine about "endless war," accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste. While we fumble with bureaucracy and euphemism, they are flying high."

http://www.slate.com/id/2239935/

Have a nice day. B C'ing you.

Copernicus

I think if you look at what's happening in Pakistan, you can see the reasons why the US government is unpopular in the middle east. Antiwar.com does a fine job of reporting each and every drone attack, killing 100s of innocent Pakistanis with each individual suspect they target. It's a bit like Citizen X's appraisal of the Afghanistan offensive - let's invade a country to reprimand ten or so terrorists. I mean, that defies common sense to me, regardless of the immorality and senseless loss of life on all 'sides.'

James Bovard does a great job of summarising how the west's 'unpopularity' grew in the middle east, in his book 'Terrorism and Tyranny.' Well worth a read, and very difficult to contest as his book is more history and less spin (unlike mainstream media).

Anyway, great discussion/ debate, guys. Sorry I'm arriving late! :)

Copernicus,

While we aren't often in strong disagreement, there are a couple points you make which require me to rise to my defense in moderately forceful terms. It's a minor distinction at first blush, but it is actually a strong difference between how you describe my position in the pods and what I actually say and believe. In particular, your phrasing about how I  can "hardly bring himself to use the terms 'terrorist' or 'Islamist' without breaking into snickers" is in question.

This is important. I feel very, very strongly about terorrism.  I feel this way because innocent people are being killed by madmen, who in turn have been inspired to feel enough rancor at citizens of the US to engage in murder-suicide. There are people's lives at stake, and I could not feel more strongly about the issue - which is precisely why I try to dissect it as logically as possible, and look at the facts at hand. Please don't claim I can barely contain a snicker when I talk about terrorism. I never express amusement when talking about this, and will only express BEmusement when I discuss the insane, so-called "War" on terror and when I express bewilderment at how many Americans believe that the goal of the radical Islamists is to "bring down America" without actually taking a critical look at their own phraseology.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of radical Muslims who would like nothing more than to wipe the US off the map, and to take all us citizens with it. Truth be told, that is not going to happen in the forseeable future precisely because these radicals don't have enough numbers to form armies, air forces, naval fleets, etc. This is why all the terrorist attacks to date have been conducted not to "destroy America" but to kill Americans. However, in the not-so distant future, the radicals can certainly bring about even more death and destruction, with nuclear weapons. And what will lead them to do this, to create even more havoc and death in the US, while STILL not destroying the whole? That's the key question and area in which many people disagree.

I believe they will continue to be radicalized enough to leave their homes and families as long at US politicians give them reasons to recruit, in-their-face reasons to hate, reasons to move out of their world to go after American citizens.

I harbor no illiusions that many resent, and some hate, western religions and culture, but there is a difference between this mixture and what the proportion of "resenters" to "haters" will be like if the US keeps up what are unwinnable military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if there is "regime change" and "democracy-building" and "nation-building", I believe that the end result will be even more innocent Americans killed than if the US government were to maintain a policy of withdrawl, non-intervention, and to eliminate all subsidies to all sides in this ageless conflict between the Muslims and, in particular, the Isrealis.

Now, some people might cite Japan as a great example of a radicalized nation-state that was brought to its knees (and its people with it) by US might: Nuclear weapons. The Japanese surrendered and the nation and people who rose from it with US guidance did not pose threats to American citizens. I'll leave it to you to consider whether using nuclear weapons on innicent citizens in the mid-east is moral, and to wonder if it will even be effective in stopping future nuclear attacks in the US by radicalized Muslims.

Even in Kuwait, which was the recipient of plenty of US help in the last couple of decades, there are imams who are teaching kids to hate the US. Nation-building there didn't help stop this, but the presence of US troops and US bombs and US money going all over the place to various sides will certainly inspire more negative reactions more redily than if the US were not there at all. Some might think that exposing the young to US ideas and friendly troops will create an environment of trust and eventually lead to comraderie. But just one or two innocent lives being taken changes this, destroys all the good work of US troops there who have tried to build bridges between cultures. I see no way to surmount this problem if the "War on Terror", which is not a War, continues as it has been going.

I think on the margins, the best approach is to pull out and leave the mid-east to deal with its own "Hatfield-McCoy" problems. The US doesn't need to be there and I think US politicians create mroe long-term problems if they do keep sending US troops and tax money there.

It's a tough question, but I just wanted to make sure I had set thigns straight if you had the wrong impression.

Be Seeing You! (oh, and by the way, go to Glenn's site to see a great essay on libertarianism!)

I'm always reminded of a great call to FTL when discussing this matter. The caller suggested that instead of the 'grunts' on each 'side' doing all the fighting, leading to a huge loss of life on each 'side', the politicians should face-off on a one-on-one death match. Think about it - a Gordon Brown/ Obama tag-team against Bin Laden and one of his generals. I'd pay to see that! :)

Yet, no. It's much easier to throw men and women over the trenches, many with no interest or investment in the conflict other than that which has been spun by their relative politican or 'leader'  - whether that be the blind patriotism of the west, or the religious hogwash of the middle-east.  

Copernicus,

Let's assume for a second that Islamo-fascism is an existential threat.  How then do you deal with it considering:

1). Despite the massive amoung of money spent on airport security, as well as the massive infringements on civil liberties, we are told that we are no safer than before 9-11.  Now there will probably be a push for full body scanners at all airports at a cost of $150,00 plus per machine, and some security experts still question their ability to detect weapons.  In addition, in order to circumvent new protocols, terrorists will take the ultimate step of concealing explosives inside their bodies.  How do you deal with that?  Especially considering the fact that this latest episode illustrated the inadequacies of "no fly" lists.

2) 9-11 was conducted with a budget of a few hundred thousand dollars.  Currently, the U.S. defense budget is in excess of $1 trillion when one takes into account things like managing the nuclear arsenal, veterans affairs, etc.  Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are running into the trillions (especially when you consider things like lost productivity, replenishment of spent munitions, and long term care for injured veterans).  And all of it is being financed by the Chinese (and by printing money).  How does the U.S. keep paying for this?

3) How do you defeat an insurgency in its own territory?  How do you win hearts and minds when you must kill the relatives of the folks whose hearts and minds you're trying to win?

4) U.S. military operations may spread into Iran and Yemen (there are already drone strike in Yemen).  Iran is adjacent the Straights of Hormuz and Yemen borders on the Gulf of Aden (as does Somalia)--two of the world's six oil chokepoints.  What happens to the price of oil, and the world's economy, if a shooting war or terrorist attacks shuts down these routes?

The fact that grown-ups need to be told is that the War on Terror is going to end with the bankruptcy of the United States federal government, and along the way that government is going to bleed its citizens dry.

I apologize for jumping around, but I think it is important that we address a statement made by Copernicus much earlier in this thread.

Copernicus said: I suspect that at the end of the day my biggest difference with most of you is that I don’t assume that people always act rationally.

Characterizing the actions of thinking people as irrational is an erroneous assertion.  Let me explain using the model of Austrian economics.  Since all resources, including time, are scarce, all individuals create a scale of importance onto which they place their wants in an ordinal hiearchy.  They always satisfy the most urgent want, the top thing on their scale, first.  Doing this brings the individual the highest degree of utility, that is, satisfaction.  Thus, every decision that a human being makes is based on what that individual believes will bring him the most satisfaction at that particular time.  We can see, then, that humans always act in a rational manner.  Now, whether they make a good or bad decision in terms of bringing the most satisfaction is another question, and that judgement can only be made ex post or after the decision occurs and its consequences are known.

We may think that suicide bombings are an irrational act.  They are not.  Those who commit these acts are operating under a different scale of utility than you and I are.  They have placed an idea, whether it is political or religious, above their own lives.  We have seen examples of this scale of utility in our own history.  When Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death, he was articulating the idea that he would rather die fighting for his liberty than live as a slave.  (And no, I am not equating Patrick Henry with suicide bombers).

This is not just a matter of semantics.  When someone claims that another individual is acting irrationally, it dehumanizes the "irrational" individual.  There is no need to examine his motivations, to see what makes him tick, he is simply crazy.  And it allows government officials to shirk responsibility for their actions.  For instance, when Alan Greenspan famously claimed that investors were acting with "irrational exuberance," he was evading the fact that investors were reacting to his policies.  They were acting in ways which they thought would bring them the most profits based on the policies that Greenspan implemented.  In other words, it was Greenspan's fault, but he could blame it on the public by saying they were crazy.

We can disagree on what motivates Islamic terrorists, but they are not irrational.

Well, well, things have been busy while I’ve been away.  Quickly, to HOO-HAA: I think that’s beside the point. Nor do I need such proffered education. My original point was that Islamofascists attack whomever they take offense with and it has nothing to do with going to their land to do it: consider Denmark. Not only do they want to control free speech in “their” countries, but they want to control in “ours.” Giving them excuses may not be smart, but neither is it necessary.  As for the second post about having the politicians doing the fighting: I’m all for that, if you can persuade the Hitlers, Milosevics and Saddams to play along. (Please don’t damage my collegial-bias toward a presumption of thoughtfulness by suggesting that Bush is in the same league.)

Gard: dude. You’re right and when we have these written exchanges I’m reminded, that despite you being a hardcore libertarian and me, I guess, a Hayek-Epstein classic liberal, our differences aren’t that great, really. On this thing about you having a snicker in your voice: please go and re-listen to the interview you did with the woman in the bookstore. If you can honestly say I’m wrong, then fine. Obviously, I feel strongly about this and being generally human not beyond being sensitive at times. Maybe I overreacted. My apologies if that’s the case. But here’s the thing, Gard. While I don’t agree with your conclusions nor some of your arguments in the posting above, it is a nuanced examination that gives appropriate seriousness to the weight of the matter and the difficulties it poses. I never (never? I think never) hear that on the podcasts. I’m not saying you’re always cavalier, but you almost always brush off positions like mine as those held by simple-minded or ill-informed people. I hope it’s clear that I’m neither. Maybe there’s something about the medium that has the podcast addressing of the topic in such narrow terms. I don’t know. There’s certainly a marked difference in discourse. In any event, I’ve been around long enough to know that it’s possible to have respectful differences with people. I’m not so arrogant as to think anyone who disagrees with me is mentally deficient. However, I likewise take exception when I think me or my positions are being treated that way. As I say, having the occasional written exchange with you is always more encouraging. Maybe I should just stop listening to the podcasts! Except, of course, there’s just too many times I find them entertaining.

To CX, regarding your first post. I don’t disagree with, though I may interpret differently, your latter points. We’re in a war. It’s not a “war on terror” – whatever that would mean. We’re in a war-war. We may well be in WWIII. The thing is, there have been so many innovations in technology and strategic software (such as our increased sophistication in understanding network theory and complex adaptive systems) that we can no longer recognize war-war, because we’re comparing it to outdated modes of battle. Your first point, there, though, is the key one. I have no idea what the best answer is, but I am sure that pretending the problem doesn’t exist or that if we just leave them alone, everything will be okay, is deeply delusional. The logic of that, to me, is like saying that we here in North America should have stood around in the 40s, twiddling our thumbs, waiting for Germany to conquer all of Europe, then, using its vastly increased industrial and tax base, mount a massive navy and attack us. That doesn’t sound like an especially sound plan to me. To let the Jihadofascists seize some countries and start building up their power base would be like letting Hitler seize the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia and Austria. Oh, wait, we did do that. And it didn’t turn out so good. Perhaps this is why I’ll not a libertarian in the spirit of you folks. I’m not prepared to stand by with my head in the sand, ignoring peoples intentions to deny me, my family and friends the most basic liberty of all: freedom from violence. This actually leads into another discussion that I'd like to initiate, but I'll create a new thread for it.

CX, regarding your second post, yeah, you're right. I don't know what evil gremlin possessed my mind and forced me to write that stupid sentence.

Finally, to all. As for this argument that runs throughout the thread, let’s just leave them alone. It’s our fault after all. The best I can do is copy and paste my answer to that idea from above. No one has yet offered an argument to refute it.

My point is that you say we should withdraw from the Middle East because Bin Laden and Inc. use our presence to score propaganda points that rallies feckless youth to acts of murder. But why would we believe that that would be the end of it. I mean, India hasn’t been engaged in any of the activities you describe, but has been a constant target of Islamofascist terror for decades. Nor has Thailand, but entire Buddhist villages have been annihilated by Islamofascists in southern Thailand. So, these litanies of offenses you cite are hardly necessary to stir up fascist hatred. What if we withdraw then Bin Laden starts decrying how Western trade policy corrupts the purity of Islamic culture. This is a complaint that does go back to the modern roots of Islamofascism in the writing of Qutb – a writer very influential on Bin Laden. And, after all, we saw the extraordinary violence unleashed over the bloody Danish cartoons. So, then, what, again, we can’t risk riling up the potential terrorists? So, after we allow them to dictate our foreign policy, then we allow them to dictate our trade policy? All because we don't want to risk upsetting the fascists? What comes after that? Do they start telling us how we live in our countries? Do we have to start accommodating domestic demands for Sharia Law? Where does that end?

I can't tell you how much I wish it were as simple as you all seem determined to present the matter as. The evidence, though, just doesn't support such a view.

But, as always, thank you for the invigorating discussion.

B C'ing you.

Copernicus

Dude, don't you think that this point you make:

"I can't tell you how much I wish it were as simple as you all seem determined to present the matter as. The evidence, though, just doesn't support such a view."

is at odds with this:

"I'm not so arrogant as to think anyone who disagrees with me is mentally deficient. However, I likewise take exception when I think me or my positions are being treated that way"

?

And 'proffered education'? Really, if you're involved in a debate you're already trading in the currency of 'proffered education.'

"My original point was that Islamofascists attack whomever they take offense with and it has nothing to do with going to their land to do it: consider Denmark. Not only do they want to control free speech in "their" countries, but they want to control in "ours." Giving them excuses may not be smart, but neither is it necessary." 

Really? I can't agree with that, given the reports of esclated drone attacks in Pakistan:

From anti-war.com:

'This appears to be a sum total of nine US drone strikes against sites in Pakistan so far this year: only half a month in. The United States launched 44 attacks in 2009, a dramatic increase from the number in 2008, but President Obama reportedly approved an escalation. On pace for perhaps hundreds of attacks in 2010, the escalation may draw uncomfortable attention to the controversial strikes, which killed upwards of 700 civilians in 2009. (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/15/11-more-slain-in-two-strikes-as-us-drones-continue-to-target-north-waziristan/)'

700 civilians?! That's going to dramatically increase support, resources and, importantly, justification to the cause of the terrorist, isn't it? 

"As for the second post about having the politicians doing the fighting: I'm all for that, if you can persuade the Hitlers, Milosevics and Saddams to play along. (Please don't damage my collegial-bias toward a presumption of thoughtfulness by suggesting that Bush is in the same league.)"

At risk of further losing your respect for my intellectual integrity, I might actually question your assumption that Bush is, somehow, to be held in esteem high above the other dictators you mention. A noteable christian magazine (Third Way) actually did an interesting article on such, some years back. I'm not xian, by the way, but was intrigued with the author's analysis of how Bin Laden and Bush both shared quite a bit in common. Both used religious fundamentalist rhetoric, for example, to justify their questionable foreign policy. 

But, that aside. While I agree with both your and Gard's disdain for terrorism, as James Bovard illustrates, the body count with terrorism is consistently much, much lower than that of a war. So, in a sense, one could argue that while terrorism is undeniably evil - when compared to an unjust war, it is less evil. At least if measured numerically.

Which brings me back to my original point, one which you seek to underestimate. It is my belief that the foreign policy of the xian west is, without question, the primary motivation for islamofascist acts of terror.  

I'll accept that it is not the only motivation, of course, as you very well illustrate in your previous post.  

Ah, CX, always the worthy adversary: I always enjoy your thoughtful replies. Of course I’m going to disagree, but I hope you appreciate that it’s with respect. I’m not going to try and argue the point about lacking a control group for history. We’re left with speculation. True I don’t know if Hitler would have attacked North America, but he did, gradually growing stronger with each new conquest, try to conquer Europe. And since we have no reason to doubt what that would have meant on the basis of what happened where he was in control, I say it was a good thing that we, Americans and Canadians (among others) – despite Gardner’s favourite George Washington quote – traveled far from home to stop him. And while history never repeats itself exactly, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

When you say, “I understand your concerns about Jihadists trying to impose their way of life on us, don't you think they may feel the same way?” I imagine they do, but do the facts support that point of view? Almost every military intervention by the U.S. in the last 20+ years has been to protect Muslims from violence and allow them to preserve their way of life: e.g., supporting the Afghan mujahedeen against the USSR, protecting Lebanon from Syrian subversion, driving Saddam out of Kuwait, saving the Balkan Muslims from the Serb genocide machine, a decade of flying daily missions to keep Saddam out of the Shiite and Kurd areas of Iraq, the overthrowing of the Taliban torture theocracy and finally – FINALLY – the overthrow of the Stalin-wannabe’s charnel house that was Saddam’s Iraq. Now, I’m not saying that in each case the motives were pure or that the side defended was always above reproach. But what is true is that in all cases the result was that Muslims were liberated to practice their faith in the manner of their choice. Contrast this to the great inroads in having Sharia Law “normalized” in the “Western” world. Most disturbingly in Europe, but also here: last year, the Province of Ontario came very close to incorporating Sharia law tribunals into the Family Court system. So the state would have actually been defending a “legal” system that has the second class status of women and infidels written right into its core values. The very thought should be enough to make a liberation weep. 

I need to add, here, though, the last paragraph could be mistaken as bowing to cultural relativism. I am not (and can’t imagine you, CX, could be either). I believe in a consequentialist version of natural law. When people’s rights and liberties are destroyed, that’s not acceptable because someone else believes in the values that lead to such destruction and that their ideas are just as valid as any other. I admit, I’m not going to advocate going to war over such differences alone, but don’t tell me it’s all equal.

You’re quite right that Jihadofascists do not have a monopoly on terror. I never claimed they did, nor did I claim that all Muslims were such. My point was that the explanation of “our” imperialist policies meddling in their affairs was not an adequate explanation for their violence. I’m just asking how far you want to go in appeasing them. Okay, we stop fighting them in the Middle East. Then what, India should just give them Kashmir? Thailand should just give them its southern provinces? We all should institute Sharia Law? Where exactly do you draw the line for your liberty? Because the logic of the libertarian (?) position I’m reading in this thread is simply that we keep giving them what they want, because we don’t want to give them an excuse to be terrorists.  As I’ve said, the evidence doesn’t support that view. You’ve mentioned Thailand and India (and let’s not forget Denmark), but you haven’t told me why I shouldn’t interpret those events as a demonstration that the Jihadofascists won’t use any kind of violence against anyone who stands in their way, whatever it is they want. And if that’s true, retreat is suicide.

On your final point, in the first post: I’m no conservative, but your question might be fairly asked of a classical liberal like Hayek, Epstein or myself. The short answer (and this was the topic I wanted to address in another thread), is that we believe that the first and fundamental foundation for liberty is the freedom from coercion and violence. In a society of unpoliced voluntary association, the voluntary association of the thug and the gangster is effectively no different from that of producers or traders. If that’s allowed, whether the violence is generated from within or without of the community, free markets are doomed.  But, as I say, this topic deserves its own thread. And, no, I’m not so stupid to believe politicians just because they’re promoting war. Abolition was a convenient and valuable rhetorical point for Lincoln to use in rallying support during your Civil War. Anyone who studies the matter, though, knows the original conflict was over trade policy and state rights. That didn’t mean though one shouldn’t necessarily support the North in the interest of abolishing slavery. Life if full of difficult choices and lesser evils: Like supporting a state police power to prevent coercion even while knowing perfectly well that such a power is extremely dangerous and only constant vigilance has any hope of preventing it from turning into, not the protector, but the destroyer of freedom. Far too often in our discussions (not just you, CX, but all the contributors to this thread) I’m left with the impression that libertarianism is a Panglossian fantasy of what the world should be like. To me that’s just wishing away the hard choices in a messy world.

Finally, CX (phew, I don’t usually do such a detailed reply, I know, but there were lots of interesting points I wanted to engage you around), for your second post, aren’t you doing what you suggest I’m doing? Just going back to the beginning of our discussion and neglecting the in-between? I think my response to this is two paragraphs up.

HOO-HAA, first post: No, I don’t think the belief that someone(s) has missed, or misread, the evidence constitutes a belief in their mental deficiency. If I believed that there’d be no point in talking at all. You might have a point on the “proffered education” remark.

HOO-HAA, second post: I never denied that the U.S. and NATO did give reasons to anger the Jihadofascists. (I'm sure the Allied invasion of North Africa angered Hitler. To which I say, should have thought about that before before you delared war.) Your documentation of the drone attacks, though, hardly constitutes a cause and effect, though, does it? This argument is entirely speculative. Whereas I’ve pointed to cases where countries that have only tried to protect the integrity of their historical borders being subject to terrorist massacres, so, clearly, there’s no necessary connection between the fascists’ proclivity for mass murder and any injustice resulting from U.S. or NATO actions. As I said, and you quote, but don’t address: “Giving them excuses may not be smart, but neither is it necessary." See four paragraphs up.

On the Bush, matter: nice phrasing! In fact, your phasing was so clever that you entirely averted any diminished estimation of your intelligence. But, you know I disagree: I do not have huge esteem for Bush, but to compare to these totalitarian dictators is absurd. Though he may not be a libertarian, we all could do well by regularly going back and reading George Orwell’s essays and journalism from the 30s and 40s, when he took on the pacifists, Fabians, Bloomsbury and Peace movement fellow travelers of Hitler, who tried to create the absurd position that there was any kind of moral equivalency between Britain’s constitutional monarchy and Germany’s Third Reich. In a real world where life, death and liberty are actually on the line, and academic debates can end up settled by firing squads in dank basement, if we aren’t able to put our idealized fantasies aside and evaluate greater and lesser evils, we are in awfully big trouble indeed.

As always, thanks for the discussion.

B C’ing you.
Copernicus