The cornerstone of libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle: you won’t harm anyone if they won’t harm you either. This principle guides our conduct in peace and in war. We’re libertarians who served in the Global War on Terrorism; a soldier, a sailor, and a marine.
Chris Kyle, photo by Cpl. Damien Gutierrez, USMC
One of us is a constitutional conservative and two of us are dues-paying Libertarian Party members. We think our government should never have started the Iraq War. Intervention was wrong because it opened Pandora’s box of medieval rivalries and medieval brutality. We also don’t regret our decision to serve. We found out how the non-aggression principle becomes less and less black-and-white when shrouded in the fog of war. In the middle of a terrible war we don’t agree with, Chris Kyle made the best of a bad situation.
All the controversy surrounding Kyle’s legacy truly baffles us. For starters, most of the people throwing fits over his hit count and calling insurgents “savages” have never even read his autobiography, American Sniper. They’re just reciting quotes from the book, often taken out of context then hastily-written in online editorials. Talking about things while completely uninformed is called being ignorant. We say to our readers: if you haven’t read American Sniper cover to cover, you don’t have an informed opinion on Chris Kyle. Full stop.
Furthermore, the histrionically inclined are calling Kyle a liar and sociopath based on anecdotal citations. This narrative is pushed harshly in order to attack Kyle’s character. The infamous Jesse Ventura story is one of them. The only people who truly know the extent of truth in that story are Kyle, Ventura, and others in the bar that night. The same people pointing to the jury’s decision to award Ventura the royalty money and claiming that it’s iron clad proof Kyle may have lied, are the exact same people who turn around and decry the system we have in place when white police officers aren’t indicted.
And to clear something up, there’s a huge difference between a lie and an exaggeration. An exaggeration to a civilian is typically called a “fish story” or a “tall tale.” In Kyle’s Navy, they’re called “Sea Stories.” Sailors (along with all service-members) have a long, proud tradition of telling Sea Stories, going back at least six hundred years. Choppy seas? No. Rogue waves from every direction crashing down onto the flight deck of the carrier, almost capsizing her? Definitely!
It’s a completely cultural phenomenon, folks. Just as Democrats do not understand “gun culture” and Republicans don’t understand any culture, most civilians don’t understand military culture. Sea Stories are not something to get worked up about, and they are certainly not the smoking gun of poor character. Perhaps Kyle and Ventura simply exchanged words. Maybe they exchanged numbers. Or maybe Kyle knocked out Ventura for bad-mouthing the troops. The bottom line is that it simply doesn’t matter at this point. One of the most important pieces of military equipment is a “finely calibrated bullshit detector,” but anti-Kyle critics don’t understand “carpe diem.”
As far as those defending him, most of them are completely down-playing the messed up skeletons in his closet which he casually wrote about. They’re hiding his skeletons and re-branding him as a modern-day John Basilone or Audie Murphy. It’s mostly because, after two long and bitter wars, they badly needed a hero for our time.
Photo by John A. Foley
Despite our evolved political views, nothing will EVER change the fact that Kyle kept a lot of good, perhaps misguided young men alive—men like us. We all did our time in the service, and that time in uniform showed us how things weren’t the way we were led to believe in the past. We became intimate with war and warfare. We’re no different than the many other soldiers, sailors, and marines for whom Kyle provided watch.
Most Americans—even most people in the military—will never know what it’s like to live under the protection of sniper fire. We’re glad that Chris Kyle was a sniper and we agree that every shot he ever took in the war was justified. Now give us a moment to flash our Ron Paul lapel pins before you write us off as imperialists and burn us at the stake for deviating from libertarian orthodoxy.
Chris Kyle said some messed up things about killing, but he never called Iraqis savages as a whole, nor any like names. These comments weren’t extended to include the indigenous interpreters, the patriotic Iraqi soldiers and police trying to rebuild their country, or the civilians who set a positive example and treated Americans with friendship and respect. It was the insurgency to whom Kyle referred constantly as savages.
video screenshot by Nick Berg
And the insurgents, their ranks saturated with jihadist terrorists and organized crime groups, really were savages. They were monsters. The things they did were absolutely unspeakable. We’re talking about mass executions, daily beheadings, suicide bombings in civilian crowds, punitive amputations on civilians, and especially exploitation of children as cannon fodder. While Kyle had issues, the people he was killing—according to strict Rules of Engagement—were nothing less than savages.
Many in the liberty movement claim that the Iraqi insurgents had the moral high ground in the war. This theory looks good on paper, until one takes a closer look at who the insurgents were and what they did. The picture most anti-war activists have is one of noble patriots fighting to liberate their country from the foreign aggressors. Lest we prove to the world abroad that Americans truly have a short-term memory problem, the Islamic State terror-army currently committing horrible crimes against humanity in Iraq and Syria emerged under a different name in 2004: AQI, or Al Qaida in Iraq.
AQI was the predominant enemy we engaged and they are no friend even to nation-states who detest the United States. The U.S. being a mutual enemy, “The Great Satan,” has not given any common ground to ISIS and terror-sponsoring states like the Islamic Republic of Iran. The “Iraqi freedom fighter” delusion might have held substance back in 2003. Maybe. But 2004 and onward was a VERY different story.
By 2005 most Iraqi patriots had chosen a side and were either in the new government army, the police, or the local militia. They joined because they wanted to actually rebuild their country, or at the very least keep their neighborhoods safe from the psychopath insurgents. Whereas the Iraqi patriots were on our side in the war—they resented the hell out of America for invading, but they fought on our side. The insurgency was quite literally either: 1) organized crime groups bolstered by AK-47s and Republican Guard veterans, or 2) foreign, non-Iraqi jihadists who had no more of a right to be there than Chris Kyle did, only the jihadists didn’t give a damn about rules of engagement.
Iraqi insurgents, photo by the Department of Homeland Security
The reason the insurgency gained more power than the government security forces is that the insurgents—gangsters and jihadists alike—were able to hack off limbs, chop off heads, murder entire families of interpreters and informants, kidnap hostages, assassinate local leaders and elders, and a slew of other techniques of “guerrilla war” not open to government soldiers and police. But hey, they were freedom fighters, right?
The Iraqi (and foreign-born) warlords of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Shia Mahdi Army, and the various regional and neighborhood gangs who became overnight “insurgent groups” were, and are, a far cry from the Rothbardian militia volunteers at Concord in 1775. At no point did any American guerrillas kidnap Lord Cornwallis’ wife and children and float their bullet-riddled bodies down the Rappahannock. At no time did American guerrillas bomb or burn down churches with civilian Loyalists still inside. The American guerrillas always engaged the Redcoats away from their homes rather than use civilians as human shields and make propaganda out of their corpses.
Quite simply, there exist human beings who choose to be something other than human. Gang members who peel faces off, terrorists who decapitate hostages and murder civilians en mass, rapists, child molesters, etc.; they aren’t human. They’re monsters and the epitome of evil. To be considered a human being, one must behave like one, not like a demon. But as libertarians, we have no choice but to treat all lives with equal value until given a legitimate reason to do otherwise.
As libertarians, we don’t believe in preemptive strikes as the default strategy—especially not when cooked up by a bunch of rich-kid draft-dodgers whose military prowess is surpassed by any ten-year-old playing Call of Duty. However, we do believe in self-defense and in ambushing or apprehending would-be murderers in transit to commit an evil deed, with evidence in hand. All lives are equal until an individual embarks on a course of action to take other lives without just cause.
It’s at that point when it becomes necessary for good men to stand on a line between the weak and those who would exploit their weakness. Between the wolves of the world and the men, women, and children who want peace and to live free from the oppression of the beast. The recognition of this reality is how we as Constitutionalists and Libertarians can operate with a clear conscience. We stand ready to vehemently fight just conflicts and meet the enemy on his home soil so our countrymen can live in peace and freedom here at home.
This is not to say that we want to drag our country into endless wars via government action. By no means! We simply were, and are, prepared as individuals to stand and volunteer for what we think is a just cause, if not always a just war.
The majority of Iraqi insurgents blatantly disregarded the non-aggression principle and butchered civilians in their quest to harm Americans, whereas we the foreign invaders had absurdly restrictive rules of engagement. We’re sorry about the drone strikes and the horrifying collateral damage, but UAVs have nothing to do with Chris Kyle or the boots on the ground. End of story.
Again, let us remind our readers that we’re not apologists for the Iraq War. The public has Fox News for that kind of crap. As veterans, we support our brothers and sisters who volunteered to serve and those who have suffered the burden of deployment. As libertarians, we choose to view participants in the war as individuals—this includes American troops; private military contractors; allied nations soldiers; DoD and State Department civilians; Iraqi troops; Iraqi police; Sons of Iraq (militia); Iraqi civilian interpreters; Peshmerga guerrillas; Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Chaldean, Assyrian, and secular street gangs; Ba’ath Party loyalists; Fedayeen squads; Iranian Revolutionary Guard veterans; foreign-born Pan-Arab nationalists and Mujahedeen (jihadists); nomadic highway gangs; and a range of Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Yemeni, Egyptian, and Iraqi lone wolves.
When we view participants as individuals, we weigh their actions as individuals. As an individual, Chris Kyle did the right thing the entire time he was in-country. It does bother us a bit that he seemed to take pleasure in killing. However, people’s minds and morals tend to get twisted when they’re in the business of death and destruction. Despite that, Chris Kyle was exactly what we needed him to be, and he did exactly what needed to be done, when it was needed. And there is no doubt that many American families are together today because of his actions. A child has a father safe at home, and a mother was able to hug her children again. Sons, daughters, friends, spouses, moms and dads; these are the countless invisible faces blatantly and hurtfully disregarded by all sides in this debate. On the other hand, the oft-praised insurgents by and large were monsters. This story does not begin and end with Kyle alone.
SOI photo by the US Army
Chris Kyle and the other men of SEAL Team Three not only turned the tide to defeat those psychopaths in “God’s blind spot,” Al Anbar province, but also enabled the beginning of the Sunni Awakening. The only reason the Sons of Iraq, Sunni neighborhood militias, were able to “awaken” was because the insurgency had received enough of an ass-kicking that the untrained, poorly equipped volunteers could finally patrol their own neighborhoods and fight the insurgents on a more level playing field. Again, Kyle made the best of a bad situation.
Someday, when the state becomes obsolete and unregulated libertarian “anarchy” begins to take off, there will still be non-state groups with evil members who act as conquering tribes (as described in Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State). Maybe they’ll be bankers looking to start a new Federal Reserve in this brave new world; perhaps they’ll be just a criminal gang who would rather loot than do the hard work of producing. They could even be a fundamentalist religious group, a philosophical order, or a school of scientific thought seeking to impose their answers on the whole world, even to the death.
Either way, the people those conquerors attack will fight back in a libertarian people’s war of national liberation, or they’ll be totally subjugated by tyrants. If they do fight for their lives, their homes, and their freedom, they’ll need volunteer soldiers who possess the same qualities as Chris Kyle. Liberty will ultimately be defended by hometown boys and girls who are damn good at killing people.
L: ….such prosecutions would amount to an imposition of ex post facto law,….
me: First, thanks for answering. Feeding it back, you think that, yes, non-conscripts should be considered murderers if they kill, but that the rules of evidence and possibly EPF makes it impractical.
That’s sophisticated on some level, though I disagree. In no way are they murderers.
L: Part of persuading someone necessarily involves challenging that person’s misconceptions.
me: Yes. That’s what I do with you and NAPsolutists with probably no success to date. Occasionally I notice that some of the brainwashing may be wearing off, but the hard cases are the least likely to snap out of it. This should be no surprise. 😉
One technique that is used to is get the persuadee agreeing with you as you build a case. There is a point, though, where you do need to reverse his/her thought system.
L: How are you ever going to convince anyone that war is evil, while avoiding any criticism of soldiers?
me: Position soldiers as unwitting pawns, perhaps.
There are many places to start challenging the warfare state mentality other than the most emotionally difficult ones. Start with any number of things – chickenhawk politicians, war profiteering, blowback, budgetary concerns, etc., etc. These are ways to get the public on our side and try to actually change interventionist policies.
Libertarians have been trying those ideas for years, and where have they gotten us? While we have arguably made progress in some other areas, when it comes to foreign policy, things have been moving in the wrong direction for decades. I think it’s time to try a new approach.
Your comparison to rapists and child molesters doesn’t work because they are not doing what society at large is telling them is acceptable and even heroic.
OK, then how about bigots? For centuries, the majority of people were raised to believe in the idea of racial superiority, and found any arguments to the contrary to be highly offensive. Does this mean that egalitarians were foolish to challenge such beliefs? Would it have been effective to condemn slavery, while defending (or even praising) slave owners and slave traders?
Or, to take a more modern example, there are still many people who are raised to believe that homosexuality (as well as bisexuality, transgenderism, etc.) is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God. Should these views not be challenged?
Also, many people are strongly offended by attacks on the misconduct of police officers. In fact, our society treats cops as heroes almost to the same extent as it does soldiers. Does that mean that condemning police brutality is a waste of time? On the contrary, I would argue that libertarians like Will Grigg, Radley Balko and others have been quite effective in changing the public view of cops. The same thing can and must be done with regard to soldiers if we ever hope to change the militaristic culture that seems to have engulfed this country, and which makes any prospect of lasting peace a mere pipe dream.
There are many places to start challenging the warfare state mentality other than the most emotionally difficult ones. Start with any number of things – chickenhawk politicians, war profiteering, blowback, budgetary concerns, etc., etc. These are ways to get the public on our side and try to actually change interventionist policies. Even if we fully accept the idea that rank and file volunteer enlistees should have known better than their upbringing tells them, as you note addressing that practically has too many logistical problems, and as a talking point it only drives a wedge between us and our intended audience. Your comparison to rapists and child molesters doesn’t work because they are not doing what society at large is telling them is acceptable and even heroic. The fish rots from the head down, so attack the rotten system from the top down. Attacking all the pawns is harder and less rewarding, and plays into the hands of the rotten top of the system players who balance their seat at or near the top of the pyramid of power by dividing and conquering those of us here lower down. Even with a criminal organization, it makes sense to give leniency to the low level members to get their cooperation in taking down the bosses of the crime cartels. Doubly so when we are talking about entire societies that have been duped by systematic force-initiation and propaganda which makes it widely accepted as normal, legal, and praiseworthy.
Unfortunately, “might makes right” is the practical basis of too much existing law, regardless of what ideals lip service is paid to. If we seek to substitute persuasion for force as a way to solve societal problems in real life, the first thing we have to do is become more persuasive. If your position is that it simply does not matter whether we managed to convince any appreciable number of people of anything other than to think we are crazy, how do you hope to ever get from where we are now to where we want to be?
Part of persuading someone necessarily involves challenging that person’s misconceptions. How are you ever going to convince anyone that war is evil, while avoiding any criticism of soldiers? It would be like trying to convince someone that rape is evil, while avoiding any criticism of rapists, or trying to convince someone that child molestation is evil, without saying anything that might be offensive to pedophiles. I could go on and on all day, but I think you get the point. Arguing that an action is evil, yet the people who voluntarily perform that action are innocent, simply makes no sense. Such convoluted logic is what really makes us sound crazy.
The only way we’re ever going to halt or even slow down this country’s addiction to going into other countries to kill their citizens is to try to make Americans see and understand the horrors of war. I think we should call them murders, at least in discussions where someone follows what we’re trying to say. We need to explain what white phosporus and depleted uranium are, and how their use can affect generations to come. We need to point out when drones murder children, and never, ever use the term “collateral damage”. How else are we going to get anyone’s attention?
Well said, Jill. At least there’s someone around here who gets it.
You could easily make your position plain for our benefit. Or you can continue to deflect.
First, as I pointed out above (and you conveniently ignored), you are the one who is deflecting. This whole debate about whether soldiers should be prosecuted is an attempt to draw attention away from the original point that I made, which is that the LP (and libertarians in general) should refrain from trying to excuse/whitewash/defend the acts of aggression committed by soldiers, and should instead condemn them, just the same as we condemn all other acts of aggression. That was my primary point.
Second, while I think an excellent case could be made that soldiers should in fact be charged as murderers, there are a number of practical difficulties in doing so, starting with the fact that in order to convict someone, you have to actually prove that they committed the crime. In some cases, that would be pretty easy. In other cases, it would be almost impossible. There are also a host of other issues, such as the debate over whether such prosecutions would amount to an imposition of ex post facto law, the enormous time and expense that would be required to try so many cases, and so on and so forth. Given all that, I don’t think this is something that the LP should focus on. Rather, they should focus on explaining why simply wearing a government costume does not magically imbue one’s actions with morality.
…since Langa seems to have run away (again)…
I’ve tried to explain to you before that I have other things to do with my time, besides waste it arguing with you. Of course, I understand that this might be difficult for you to understand, as your life apparently revolves around these little IPR debates. That’s sad, but it’s not my fault.
PF, since Langa seems to have run away (again), do you know (or at least have a sense) what the answer to my question might be for the soldiers-are-murderers set? I asked the question at 108pm today.
I’d really like to know, actually, as a point of reference. While I am a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I think this murder angle is more of a Lew Rockwell.com sorta thing, and I can’t seem to grok that particular strain of L thought at this point.
A journey of 4,967 miles has to start with a single first step.
pf: If your position is that it simply does not matter whether we managed to convince any appreciable number of people of anything other than to think we are crazy, how do you hope to ever get from where we are now to where we want to be?
me: From your lips to God’s ears!
Your prospects for that Estonian Embassy gig just got a bit brighter!! 😉
Unfortunately, “might makes right” is the practical basis of too much existing law, regardless of what ideals lip service is paid to. If we seek to substitute persuasion for force as a way to solve societal problems in real life, the first thing we have to do is become more persuasive. If your position is that it simply does not matter whether we managed to convince any appreciable number of people of anything other than to think we are crazy, how do you hope to ever get from where we are now to where we want to be?
jp: I DO consider anyone who kills in an unjust war a murderer,
me: Do you further qualify that by saying only non-conscripts, or are conscripts also murderers, too?
Regardless, do you think these murderers should be treated like all other murderers and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
There are probably many reasons returning veterans in this country experience such a high suicide rate, but I certainly think that realizing they have done wrong could be one of those factors.
Langa said: ” No one? Really? Last I checked, there are more than a few Christians in this country, and last I checked, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” It does NOT say, “Thou shalt not kill, unless you are wearing a military uniform”, or “Thou shalt not kill, unless your government commands you to”, or anything like that. Does it? If it is so impossible to avoid militaristic propaganda, how is it that you or I were able to do it?”
I’ve read the thread from today, and I don’t think Langa said anything I disagree with. Truth be told, I DO consider anyone who kills in an unjust war a murderer, although I recognize that others not only don’t, but may not have the capacity to understand why I believe that.
The only way we’re ever going to halt or even slow down this country’s addiction to going into other countries to kill their citizens is to try to make Americans see and understand the horrors of war. I think we should call them murders, at least in discussions where someone follows what we’re trying to say. We need to explain what white phosporus and depleted uranium are, and how their use can affect generations to come. We need to point out when drones murder children, and never, ever use the term “collateral damage”. How else are we going to get anyone’s attention?
Langa: Also, I never said I wanted to round all war criminals up and arrest them, nor could this claim be reasonably inferred from what I did say.
me: True, you did NOT say that. You DID, however, say that non-conscripts were murderers if they kill in an unjustified war. (And, near as I can tell, none of the wars the US has been in IS justified in your mind, yes?)
This is an outrageous position, I’m sure you know, which may be why you refuse to answer the basic question, which your position implies.
Near as I can discern, there are 3 ways you could answer:
1) Yes, non-conscripts who kill during unjustified wars are murderers, and should be treated as murderers. You may be afraid to say this, since it sounds so loopy. Remember, though, that you use a pseudonym, making it easier for you to be candid.
2) Yes, this category of killer are murderers, but there are mitigating circumstances such that you would not prosecute them.
3) No, you didn’t actually mean “murder,” but something like murder.
You could easily make your position plain for our benefit. Or you can continue to deflect.
I’d note that the townsfolk of Mayberry did like the idea of arresting Barney Fife, so maybe I’ll be wildly surprised when you start arresting Korean War vets and you become a national hero! Ya never know!
Take note, Martin: THIS is a straw man. After all, the majority of Korean War vets were conscripted, and I already said that I do not consider conscripts to be war criminals. Also, I never said I wanted to round all war criminals up and arrest them, nor could this claim be reasonably inferred from what I did say. Rather, this view was attributed to me, solely to make my position appear unreasonable, which is the actual definition of a straw man argument. See the difference?
l: So, to be clear, are you or are you not defending him against my claim that he is a murderer?
me: No, he’s dead, so he needs no defense. I don’t have a position on whether he “murdered” or not. In the film, at least, I did not see him “murder,” no.
Some in the military DO murder…My Lai comes to mind.
Generally, I don’t think soldiers are “murderers,” no. I think they are doing their jobs and following orders. I DO think the Iraq War was a tremendous mistake, though.
You apparently do, and presumably you want to arrest them all, a la Gomer Pyle. Compared with John Brown, such an effort would be even more ill-advised.
I’d note that the townsfolk of Mayberry did like the idea of arresting Barney Fife, so maybe I’ll be wildly surprised when you start arresting Korean War vets and you become a national hero! Ya never know!
I don’t think being popular is more important than taking a stand against murder…
Then what again is your rationalization for why soldiers (Kyle, for example) should not be held accountable for murders to which they have literally confessed their guilt?
Neither. I’m not committed to any such approach. I don’t think being popular is more important than taking a stand against murder, much less that soldiers are heroes. Those are all strawman mischaracterizations at best.
But see those *are* the strawman…
They can’t both be straw men. You are clearly committed to a “see no evil” approach with regard to soldiers. So, you are either committed to it because you think it will eventually stop the wars, or you are committed to it in spite of the fact that it won’t stop the wars. Which is it?
But see those *are* the strawman, so it doesn’t do much good to say it has more heart and brain than itself.
Oh, and your Weatherman comparison fails just as miserably as your John Brown comparison. Nice try, though.
Well, Martin, it has more of a heart than “libertarians” who think being popular is more important than taking a stand against murder, and more of a brain than “libertarians” who think the wars will ever stop as long as soldiers are treated as heroes.
I’ve not defended Kyle…
So, to be clear, are you or are you not defending him against my claim that he is a murderer?
Would you, or would you not, Langa, as a “principled” L, arrest all veterans and active duty military for murder or as accomplices to murder?
This is the actual deflection. My original comment in this thread was that the article was written by pseudo-libertarians who were hellbent on defending Kyle. It was you, if I recall correctly, who first raised the question of whether all volunteer soldiers should be treated as war criminals.
Or for that matter a brain? LOL
Nice strawman at 7:10, langa. Does it have a heart?
L: By all means, continue to defend guys like Kyle, and even celebrate him as a hero, as this article does.
me: Do you suffer from some form of myopia? Or is this deflection calculated to change the subject? I’ve not defended Kyle or celebrated him as a hero.
Would you, or would you not, Langa, as a “principled” L, arrest all veterans and active duty military for murder or as accomplices to murder?
mp: Right. You would also have to arrest all the current and former military personnel and contractors as accessories to murder, along with many others who helped the war machine in one way or another at some point.
me: Yes, good point. I have visions of Langa as Gomer Pyle, arresting millions in the manner that Gomer arrest Barney!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM
Well, I can see you guys have dug your heels in, so don’t let me stop you. By all means, continue to defend guys like Kyle, and even celebrate him as a hero, as this article does.
As long as people continue to view soldiers as heroes, there will never be a shortage of kids lining up to enlist, and as long as the bodies are there, you’re crazy if you think the military won’t find all kinds of wild adventures to send them on.
But hey, who cares, right? As long as 5% of the population is free to smoke pot, and 50% of the population can get a government stamp of approval for their gay marriages, what’s a few thousand dead furiners, right? Better not take a chance and rock the boat, or all these great advances the LP has made might vanish. I’m sure eventually the wars will stop because, uh, well, um…the hell with it! Let me hit that, man! Long live liberty!!!
L: The antiwar movement during the Vietnam era was more radical, more strident and (not coincidentally, I would argue) more successful than anything in this century.
me: It was successful in the short term. Based on the US militarism in next few decades, I’d say it was an abysmal failure.
At least Soviet communism actually WAS an existential threat. Nowadays, the mainstream worries about stateless gangs halfway around the world which don’t have missiles, navies, or air forces.
I’m more extreme than the LP platform, which itself is pretty extreme by mainstream political standards. And the opposition to the war in Vietnam included a broad coalition with many approaches, some much more (and some much less) extreme than others.
L: And where has the soft-pedalling that you advocate gotten the LP?
me: It’s hard for me to characterize extremist and false language like “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state,” and “We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.” as soft pedals.
Some Ls soft pedal compared with the platform, yes, but even that is hardly a soft pedal compared with the current state of affairs. Sorry, but a 43% spending cut is hardly a soft pedal, for instance. It’s quite radical by mainstream standards, since most discretionary spending programs would need to be abolished overnight.
“Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, Langa would apparently arrest any living military person — both veteran and active duty — who has killed on the battlefield.
Wow!
Langa might have to issue warrants for millions!
Now THAT’s macho flash! It might even be a bigger flash than Ls who take the NAMBLA position.”
Right. You would also have to arrest all the current and former military personnel and contractors as accessories to murder, along with many others who helped the war machine in one way or another at some point.
“And where has the soft-pedalling that you advocate gotten the LP? The antiwar movement during the Vietnam era was more radical, more strident and (not coincidentally, I would argue) more successful than anything in this century.”
You don’t have to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
“Even if true, that’s just another example of the hypocrisy I am arguing against, and you, for some strange reason, seem hellbent on defending.”
I’m not defending it. As for “even if true” you would have to be pretty divorced from reality to dispute it.
“Refraining from murder is a “high standard”?”
Expecting the average 18 year old to see joining the military as signing up to commit murder is.
mp: …leads to some rather absurd conclusions
me: Sure does. Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, Langa would apparently arrest any living military person — both veteran and active duty — who has killed on the battlefield.
Wow!
Langa might have to issue warrants for millions!
Now THAT’s macho flash! It might even be a bigger flash than Ls who take the NAMBLA position.
Yes, that’s the goal. Applying that standard immediately, against the grain of what the vast majority of people have been raised to believe and told by the vast majority of society – for many of them, quite literally everyone they have ever talked to – leads to some rather absurd conclusions
And where has the soft-pedalling that you advocate gotten the LP? The antiwar movement during the Vietnam era was more radical, more strident and (not coincidentally, I would argue) more successful than anything in this century.
“Then you missed my point. It has nothing to do with how well it would “play” with the public.”
No. You missed mine.
I said “Calling all of “our” soldiers war criminals who should be on trial Nuremberg style goes over about as well with the vast majority of left, right, center, or even libertarian-leaners as celebrating pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. ”
That wasn’t about whether they are war criminals or not, only about how well it plays with the public to say so.
That’s commonly taken to mean thou shall not murder, and most people calling themselves Christians don’t believe that killing by “our” military is murder. The vast majority of religious institutions in the US are fully on board with glorifying military service.
Even if true, that’s just another example of the hypocrisy I am arguing against, and you, for some strange reason, seem hellbent on defending.
It’s not impossible, just difficult, and why do you assume I have always avoided it? As far as I know, you don’t know whether I ever fell for it or not in the past. For that matter I don’t know whether you have either, but even if you did, that doesn’t make it reasonable to hold everyone to such a high standard.
Refraining from murder is a “high standard”?
“Are you comparing me to John Brown? ”
No, just answering your question as to whether the term macho flash would have applied to some radical abolitionists in the 1850s.
” I’m just advocating that people wearing government costumes be held to the same standard as everyone else.”
Yes, that’s the goal. Applying that standard immediately, against the grain of what the vast majority of people have been raised to believe and told by the vast majority of society – for many of them, quite literally everyone they have ever talked to – leads to some rather absurd conclusions
I said nothing about whether these positions are libertarian or not, only that they would play about equally well with the general public.
Then you missed my point. I say soldiers should be held responsible for committing murder because that is the correct libertarian position. It has nothing to do with how well it would “play” with the public.
…you left bestiality off the list.
For two reasons: First, the correct libertarian position on it is debatable. Second, it is not a major concern, as it affects very few people. Neither of those are true of soldiers committing murder.
It depends on how radical. John Brown, I would say yes. Others to a lesser degree.
Are you comparing me to John Brown? I’m not advocating vigilante justice. I’m just advocating that people wearing government costumes be held to the same standard as everyone else. Isn’t that basically libertarianism in a nutshell?
mp: Self-pleasuring and ego affirmation, mostly.
me: Yes, that feels honest to me. “Purists” seem to get an ego boost from being outrageous for outrageousness’s sake.
It may also be to derive a sense of sanctimony over “sell-out” Ls, a specific form of ego affirmation.
“By the 1850s, the issue was ripe in the mainstream.”
Abolitionism was ripe for the mainstream. John Brown’s version of it was not.
“This attitude, by the way, is exactly why I stopped giving my money to the LP. How can you have a party which claims to uphold the NAP, but whose members bristle at criticism of paid assassins? What a joke!”
Yes, you are certainly making criticism of the military more socially accepted by making the LP relatively less strong than it could be vis a vis other parties. Of course your money is your own, so maybe you’ve found a better use for it with some libertarian educational efforts.
L: Would you apply this term (“macho flash”) to, say, radical abolitionists in the 1850s?
me: No. It was abolished in England in 1833, and the Quakers made it a matter of debate in the 1600s. By the 1850s, the issue was ripe in the mainstream.
Of course, “purist” Ls macho flash not only on one fringe issue, but many issues at the same time.
“No one? Really? Last I checked, there are more than a few Christians in this country, and last I checked, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” ”
That’s commonly taken to mean thou shall not murder, and most people calling themselves Christians don’t believe that killing by “our” military is murder. The vast majority of religious institutions in the US are fully on board with glorifying military service.
“If it is so impossible to avoid militaristic propaganda, how is it that you or I were able to do it?”
It’s not impossible, just difficult, and why do you assume I have always avoided it? As far as I know, you don’t know whether I ever fell for it or not in the past. For that matter I don’t know whether you have either, but even if you did, that doesn’t make it reasonable to hold everyone to such a high standard.
“Martin, are you really trying to imply that supporting pedophilia or necrophilia are libertarian positions? ”
No, although a handful of libertarians argue that children have a right to make sexual choices, and as for dead bodies, well, they are not unwilling by definition, blah blah blah. And you left bestiality off the list. In any case, I said nothing about whether these positions are libertarian or not, only that they would play about equally well with the general public.
This attitude, by the way, is exactly why I stopped giving my money to the LP. How can you have a party which claims to uphold the NAP, but whose members bristle at criticism of paid assassins? What a joke!
“Would you apply this term (“macho flash”) to, say, radical abolitionists in the 1850s?”
It depends on how radical. John Brown, I would say yes. Others to a lesser degree.
It seems to me to be a pretty high bar you want to set to hold everyone responsible to a standard that no one around them has ever had for them, and to know better than what they have been raised to believe and taught all their lives..
No one? Really? Last I checked, there are more than a few Christians in this country, and last I checked, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” It does NOT say, “Thou shalt not kill, unless you are wearing a military uniform”, or “Thou shalt not kill, unless your government commands you to”, or anything like that. Does it? If it is so impossible to avoid militaristic propaganda, how is it that you or I were able to do it?
“For example, many serial killers, such as Charles Manson, had extremely difficult childhoods. However, I do not consider that to be an excuse or justification for their criminal actions, and the same goes for soldiers.”
The difference is Charles Manson did not have society at large raising his all his life to believe his criminal actions are normal and even heroic, unlike those that join the military. It seems to me to be a pretty high bar you want to set to hold everyone responsible to a standard that no one around them has ever had for them, and to know better than what they have been raised to believe and taught all their lives. We can certainly applaud those that do, but how about some understanding for why some people don’t do so before being suckered into signing up for the military?
Martin, are you really trying to imply that supporting pedophilia or necrophilia are libertarian positions? Try again.
…this begs the question: Why continue to macho flash?
Would you apply this term (“macho flash”) to, say, radical abolitionists in the 1850s?
“If libertarians are to eschew any positions that have the potential to offend, or even alienate, a significant number of people, then our task becomes almost impossible, as we would be unable to advocate even standard libertarian positions.”
I don’t. It’s the number of people and degree of offense that is at issue here. Calling all of “our” soldiers war criminals who should be on trial Nuremberg style goes over about as well with the vast majority of left, right, center, or even libertarian-leaners as celebrating pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. There are way more people that are in favor of legalizing drugs or doing away with existing gun laws, or willing to consider these positions. And even of the ones that aren’t, there are many more that won’t then be so offended and repulsed that they would never want to hear anything else you have to say on any other issue.
“And, so, this begs the question: Why continue to macho flash? Cadre building?”
Self-pleasuring and ego affirmation, mostly.
I certainly wouldn’t describe them as heroes, but they are frequently victims – of child abuse, bullying, propaganda, etc. Gangs often target people who have been bullied, have a bad family environment or no family, lack a sense of belonging and are looking for that in a surrogate family, which the gang becomes for them. Military recruiters often seek people with the same traits.
Mafia hitmen can be victims too (and not just of other mafia hitmen). I won’t say for the record that I have known any, but if I did, they may have been military veterans with PTSD…victims of the same propaganda machine that recruits cannon fodder for the military.
Well, yes, I suppose they could be considered “victims” in the sense that they have had bad things happen to them, but in that sense, almost everyone could be considered a victim, at least to some extent. For example, many serial killers, such as Charles Manson, had extremely difficult childhoods. However, I do not consider that to be an excuse or justification for their criminal actions, and the same goes for soldiers. Regardless of whatever traumatic experiences they may have suffered, they are still ultimately responsible for their actions.
mp: …even many [“]radical[“] libertarians don’t see it as good to “macho flash” by confronting the general public with such a view. A few do, but mainly only get people to recoil away from them, because they are nowhere near ready to even begin considering such a viewpoint or even anything else that someone confronting them with such a position says.
me: Well stated. And, so, this begs the question: Why continue to macho flash? Cadre building?
Is there anyone who has volunteered for the military and was in war that you would not view as a war criminal?
Sure. I would make an exception for anyone who is engaged in purely defensive combat, by which I mean anyone whose country has been invaded, and is fighting solely to expel the invaders.
It’s because what soldiers and snipers do is legal and socially approved by most of society at large, unlike gang members or mafiosos. Even libertarians rarely see past that, and even many radical libertarians don’t see it as good to “macho flash” by confronting the general public with such a view. A few do, but mainly only get people to recoil away from them, because they are nowhere near ready to even begin considering such a viewpoint or even anything else that someone confronting them with such a position says.
If libertarians are to eschew any positions that have the potential to offend, or even alienate, a significant number of people, then our task becomes almost impossible, as we would be unable to advocate even standard libertarian positions. For example, many people on the left would automatically reject any candidate who expressed total opposition to the idea of gun control. Similarly, many people on the right would automatically reject any candidate who expressed total opposition to the idea of drug prohibition. Does this mean that libertarians should shy away from these positions?
I certainly wouldn’t describe them as heroes, but they are frequently victims – of child abuse, bullying, propaganda, etc. Gangs often target people who have been bullied, have a bad family environment or no family, lack a sense of belonging and are looking for that in a surrogate family, which the gang becomes for them. Military recruiters often seek people with the same traits.
Mafia hitmen can be victims too (and not just of other mafia hitmen). I won’t say for the record that I have known any, but if I did, they may have been military veterans with PTSD…victims of the same propaganda machine that recruits cannon fodder for the military.
L: If they volunteered, yes. Absolutely.
PF: I wouldn’t judge falling for propaganda quite that harshly.
me: Cold, Langa! Why stop at Nuremberg? Is there anyone who has volunteered for the military and was in war that you would not view as a war criminal?
“Yes, many of the soldiers have been brainwashed by propaganda, and genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, but the same could be said for many racist skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc. And yet I never hear anyone describing those particular scumbags as victims, let alone heroes.
And as for needing money, I don’t see how anyone (libertarian or not) could think there is any difference between being paid to kill on command, no questions asked, for the military, and doing the same for the Mafia. Again, however, I never hear anyone expressing anything but contempt for Mafia hitmen, even though I’m willing to bet the average military sniper kills a lot more innocent people than the average Mafia hitman.”
It’s because what soldiers and snipers do is legal and socially approved by most of society at large, unlike gang members or mafiosos. Even libertarians rarely see past that, and even many radical libertarians don’t see it as good to “macho flash” by confronting the general public with such a view. A few do, but mainly only get people to recoil away from them, because they are nowhere near ready to even begin considering such a viewpoint or even anything else that someone confronting them with such a position says.
I wouldn’t judge falling for propaganda quite that harshly. Fighting for one’s tribe is part of our “genetic memory” (or whatever the actual mechanism is). It’s part of the social obligation many people feel growing up. Even Adam Kokesh in the video on the other post says he wouldn’t have volunteered for the military if he knew then what he knows now. I know a lot of people who joined the military just because they plain and simple needed a job, too. Whether they joined out of a sense of misguided patriotism, or seeking fun and adventure, or needing work, many people had no clue what they were signing up for when they joined. And at that point going AWOL/deserting comes with its own set of serious consequences.
Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, but I get so sick of all the “antiwar” libertarians who seem content to limit their criticism to the politicians (who, of course, definitely deserve their share), while basically giving a free pass to the soldiers, who are usually referred to as “victims” (or, even worse, “heroes”).
Yes, many of the soldiers have been brainwashed by propaganda, and genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, but the same could be said for many racist skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc. And yet I never hear anyone describing those particular scumbags as victims, let alone heroes.
And as for needing money, I don’t see how anyone (libertarian or not) could think there is any difference between being paid to kill on command, no questions asked, for the military, and doing the same for the Mafia. Again, however, I never hear anyone expressing anything but contempt for Mafia hitmen, even though I’m willing to bet the average military sniper kills a lot more innocent people than the average Mafia hitman.
Ultimately, I don’t think we will ever be able to exert the kind of pressure necessary to dismantle the warfare state, until we begin holding not just the politicians, but also the soldiers, responsible for their actions.
But here’s where I fear I may go too far and lose you, but I can’t help saying it. The ultimate example anyone can point to for ‘savagery’ is the recent ISIS video, right? The Jordanian pilot captured and burned alive? Question: What exactly do people think happens when you drop bombs on people? Do they not get burned alive? So one person burned alive is an outrage – a wedding party burned alive, or a city burned alive – it’s just foreign policy (or “saving American lives and scaring the Russians.”) Was this pilot not in the process of burning people alive with his plane? Why do some people have a right to burn others alive, and others not?
Excellent point.
It’s entirely appropriate.
I’m too naturally optimistic to say “ever” but otherwise you are unfortunately correct.
Can’t speak for anyone else but you haven’t lost me; it’s a valid point.
Joshua said: “But here’s where I fear I may go too far and lose you, but I can’t help saying it. The ultimate example anyone can point to for ‘savagery’ is the recent ISIS video, right? The Jordanian pilot captured and burned alive? Question: What exactly do people think happens when you drop bombs on people? Do they not get burned alive? So one person burned alive is an outrage – a wedding party burned alive, or a city burned alive – it’s just foreign policy (or “saving American lives and scaring the Russians.”) Was this pilot not in the process of burning people alive with his plane? Why do some people have a right to burn others alive, and others not?”
This is the most sensible and true paragraph that I’ve read on the topic of Middle Eastern violence in a long time. Thanks for writing it, and thank you also for believing it.
This might be an appropriate time to talk about white phosporus being used, but perhaps I’ll bring that up some other time.
‘
I wouldn’t judge falling for propaganda quite that harshly. Fighting for one’s tribe is part of our “genetic memory” (or whatever the actual mechanism is). It’s part of the social obligation many people feel growing up. Even Adam Kokesh in the video on the other post says he wouldn’t have volunteered for the military if he knew then what he knows now. I know a lot of people who joined the military just because they plain and simple needed a job, too. Whether they joined out of a sense of misguided patriotism, or seeking fun and adventure, or needing work, many people had no clue what they were signing up for when they joined. And at that point going AWOL/deserting comes with its own set of serious consequences.
You know what? I’m tired. I’m tired of living in a world where this sort of thing seems remotely libertarian. And – it does seem libertarian. That’s the sick part. What they’ve written here is closer to a libertarian foreign policy than 90% of the country will ever go. Sure, it’s full of logical errors – like presuming that we have to know the background of people living in country X to know whether or not their standing up to invaders is an act of defense. Yes, they made snide remarks about those of us who don’t enthusiastically support police murder.
Look, I’m not talking here as an LNC member, and I wouldn’t put these remarks out under color of office – but really, there are a few things I need to get off my chest. First, the idea that “I’m glad there were snipers there to keep me alive.” Easier way to keep alive – stay out of the country. Kyle thinks he’s made some knock-down point when he says that he doesn’t care about the history of the child he shoots, just that the child was trying to kill him. That cuts both ways, friends – and, of the two, who was invading and who was not?
But here’s where I fear I may go too far and lose you, but I can’t help saying it. The ultimate example anyone can point to for ‘savagery’ is the recent ISIS video, right? The Jordanian pilot captured and burned alive? Question: What exactly do people think happens when you drop bombs on people? Do they not get burned alive? So one person burned alive is an outrage – a wedding party burned alive, or a city burned alive – it’s just foreign policy (or “saving American lives and scaring the Russians.”) Was this pilot not in the process of burning people alive with his plane? Why do some people have a right to burn others alive, and others not?
Do you believe that everyone who served in the military in any capacity under Hitler should have been on trial in Nuremberg?
If they volunteered, yes. Absolutely.
I agree that the article is weak in a lot of ways, but “waiting in vain for these self-proclaimed “libertarians” to say something remotely libertarian” is IMO too harsh here. Also, the Nuremberg defense was employed by high ranking Nazis, not rank and file Wehrmacht foot soldiers. Do you believe that everyone who served in the military in any capacity under Hitler should have been on trial in Nuremberg?
“As libertarians, we don’t believe in preemptive strikes as the default strategy—especially not when cooked up by a bunch of rich-kid draft-dodgers whose military prowess is surpassed by any ten-year-old playing Call of Duty”
While this might be a libertarian position when viewed in isolation, when taken in the context of the entire article, it seems liked a tired variation on the Nuremberg defense, i.e. “Don’t blame the soldiers; blame the politicians who sent them.” But it is difficult to see why that distinction matters, given that the soldiers volunteered to be at the beck and call of these same politicians.
“As libertarians, we choose to view participants in the war as individuals—this includes American troops; private military contractors; allied nations soldiers; DoD and State Department civilians; Iraqi troops; Iraqi police; Sons of Iraq (militia); Iraqi civilian interpreters; Peshmerga guerrillas; Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Chaldean, Assyrian, and secular street gangs; Ba’ath Party loyalists; Fedayeen squads; Iranian Revolutionary Guard veterans; foreign-born Pan-Arab nationalists and Mujahedeen (jihadists); nomadic highway gangs; and a range of Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Yemeni, Egyptian, and Iraqi lone wolves.”
Again, that’s a nice sentiment, but unfortunately, the rest of the article does not seem to adhere to this supposedly individualist mindset. For example, the very next paragraph says that, “…the oft-praised insurgents by and large were monsters.” This seems no different than saying, for example, “Well, I think gay people should be seen as individuals. But most of them are sick perverts.” This does not demonstrate a commitment to individualism, but rather, to lip service.
I’ve read Mein Kampf from cover to cover, and it didn’t make me a fan of Hitler. Maybe that was the translator’s fault? I havent read Chris Kyle’s book, so I don’t know if his quotes were taken out of context.
Some libertarian things said in this article:
“As libertarians, we don’t believe in preemptive strikes as the default strategy—especially not when cooked up by a bunch of rich-kid draft-dodgers whose military prowess is surpassed by any ten-year-old playing Call of Duty”
And:
“As libertarians, we choose to view participants in the war as individuals—this includes American troops; private military contractors; allied nations soldiers; DoD and State Department civilians; Iraqi troops; Iraqi police; Sons of Iraq (militia); Iraqi civilian interpreters; Peshmerga guerrillas; Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Chaldean, Assyrian, and secular street gangs; Ba’ath Party loyalists; Fedayeen squads; Iranian Revolutionary Guard veterans; foreign-born Pan-Arab nationalists and Mujahedeen (jihadists); nomadic highway gangs; and a range of Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Yemeni, Egyptian, and Iraqi lone wolves.”
They say a lot of things that are at best questionable from a libertarian perspective, too.
…if you haven’t read [Mein Kampf] cover to cover, you don’t have an informed opinion on [Adolf Hitler]. Full stop.
I should have stopped reading after that ridiculous claim, but I just kept on plowing through, waiting in vain for these self-proclaimed “libertarians” to say something remotely libertarian.
Unfortunately, they never did, choosing instead to waste the reader’s time with irrelevant historical excursions, straw man arguments, new spins on the Nuremberg defense, and above all, countless tedious and redundant reiterations of the claim that the end justifies the means (which is philosophically incompatible with any coherent version of libertarianism).
With “libertarians” like these, who needs statists?
Their approach is a lot more nuanced than Dondero-Rittberg’s, but it does have a few weak spots, including the apparently unironic (as far as I know) use of “Global War on Terrorism.”
No one who uses the term “Global War on Terror” is a libertarian. This is the kind of bullshit I’d expect from a Dondero-Rittberg website.
And getting back to Iraq, I noticed that in their discussion of insurgent attrocities, the authors left out accounts of attrocities carried out by the US and its allies, for example in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Among more recent revelations is that children were raped in front of their mothers (and vice versa).
It’s not in any way surprising that gangsters, religious fanatics and sadists came to lead the insurgency. That’s the way it usually goes, and not just in this case as the authors strongly imply. And it’s also not surprising that those fighting on the opposite side such as these authors would hear (and see) a lot of the insurgents’ barbarity. But on the other hand, the insurgency was also fed by the humiliation of being under the occupation of a foreign army with a different culture and religion, historical parallels to the crusades, routine humiliations visited on the native population by occupiers, the preceding long history of bombing and embargo, etc., etc. It’s also a big part of what attracted jihadists from outside of Iraq to go there.
Thank you for the interesting read. It provides a valuable perspective from those who were there on the Iraq war. I think they whitewash some past wars where they hadn’t been, however.
For example:
As far as those defending him, most of them are completely down-playing the messed up skeletons in his closet which he casually wrote about. They’re hiding his skeletons and re-branding him as a modern-day John Basilone or Audie Murphy. It’s mostly because, after two long and bitter wars, they badly needed a hero for our time.
Has it occurred to them that these past war heroes were equally morally complex and compromised, and that we’ve just received the whitewashed version of history written by the winners?
The Iraqi (and foreign-born) warlords of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Shia Mahdi Army, and the various regional and neighborhood gangs who became overnight “insurgent groups” were, and are, a far cry from the Rothbardian militia volunteers at Concord in 1775. At no point did any American guerrillas kidnap Lord Cornwallis’ wife and children and float their bullet-riddled bodies down the Rappahannock. At no time did American guerrillas bomb or burn down churches with civilian Loyalists still inside. The American guerrillas always engaged the Redcoats away from their homes rather than use civilians as human shields and make propaganda out of their corpses.
It’s naive to believe that the American rebels were not commiting war crimes. They may not have been on the scale of the Iraqi isurgency, but make no mistake: guerrilla warfare is always a very dirty business.
It’s instructive to sometimes read history as seen by the losing side, e.g., http://www.redcoat.me.uk/
For example:
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/page8.htm
On 25/Feb/1781 around 400 American Loyalists (mainly of Scottish ancestry) being led by John Pyle were traveling from the Old Hillsboro area to join up as volunteers when ‘Light Horse’ Harry Lee and his cavalry (who were out looking for such recruitment parties) approached them at Haw River as though they were to be their escort, but when they got themselves all along side the Loyalists, Lee ordered the slaughter, which is described by one of his men as: “no quarter was granted and nearly all were inhumanly butchered, by a cold and unfeeling policy that aroused it, as the most effective means of intimidating the friends of royal government.”
Or consider:
Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. But what is less well known is these same leaders had become wealthy dealing with the enemy during the Seven-Year-War, while fellow Americans were fighting to help save the colonies from the French.
Another reason not often mentioned is that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.
Then a Habeas corpus case (having to justify the reason for someone’s detention) was started in London 1771, which found that slavery was contrary to the laws of England. This verdict ultimately led to the abolition of slavery in Britain. The ramifications of which was not lost on the future rebel leaders as most being slave owners would have considered it a threat to their livelihoods.
….
“those that most loudly espoused ‘freedom’, were controlling the largest number of slaves. ”
“(General Washington) was at least as harsh on his troops as any British commander or even more so, as he would extend any lashing over several days for those he disapproved of, waiting for wounds to scab over before having them opened up again, then time and time again. ”
“The Loyalists were about 40% of the population overall, (Long Island was 90% Loyalist) and those that just didn’t want to be on the losing side (including ‘late’ loyalists), made up the remaining 33%. The Loyalists being law abiding were originally passive relying on the British for protection, but after they became increasingly persecuted, terrorised and humiliated by the rebels, about 15,000 joined as provincials with the British Army and another 10,000 served part-time with the various Loyalist militias. Many of who became highly motivated after experiencing rebel brutality, an example of such a person is Thomas Brown the son of a merchant, who had tried to confront a gang of the Sons of Liberty, but they attacked him, fracturing his skull, then partially scalped him, tarred his legs and held him over a fire with which he lost toes. ”
Tarring and feathering was a common tactic used against loyalists. Among other things it could cause painful and disfiguring blistering. Other tactics included “punched wth. a long pole, beaten with Clubs, led to liberty tree, there whipt with Cords, and tho’ a very cold night, led on to the Gallows, then whipt again.”
When a victim tried to remove the tar, some of his skin would rip off, exposing him to infection.
…
“Also the rebels recruited reprobates who had evolved a Presbyterian religion that as good as justified carrying out inhuman war crimes against Loyalists and keeping redcoat prisoners in such appalling conditions that most died. ”
…
“An example of what these ‘From over the mountain’ people were capable of, was at the battle of Kings Mount where having surrounded a heavily outnumbered Loyalist unit, whose position had became hopeless so had (despite rebels not usually taking Loyalist militia as prisoners), tried to surrender; they just cut Major Ferguson to pieces and violated his body and this to a man whose chivalry in battle had prevented him from shooting Washington in the back. ”
…
” Also if any other examples of barbarity were required, they then used this distortion of religion to justify firstly starving those prisoners that they did take, only to hang or shoot most of them later. ”
“The expression ‘Lynch Mob’ comes from the American Patriot Judge Lynch who hung anyone suspected of being a Loyalist with impunity. Such was the zealous behaviour of some rebels they not only forced mothers to witness the hanging of their Loyalist sons, rebel fathers would actually hang their own Loyalist sons. Black Loyalists were not only hung but their bodies were also publicly burnt. ”
“Those loyalists that hadn’t fled to the relative safety of British held areas e.g. New York hoping to avoid being dispossessed, ran the risk of torture or even murder.”
http://threerivershms.com/loyalistspersecution.htm :
“Another form of torture inflicted on some of the Tories was to force them to ride the rail. This involved placing the “unhappy victim” upon sharp rails with one leg on each side; each rail was carried upon the shoulders of two tall men, with a man on each side to keep the poor wretch straight and fixed in his seat. …. forcing a Tory to ride an unsaddled horse …whipping, cropping ears, placing the enemy in the pillory or stockade.”
…