Austin Petersen: Libertarians and the Military, featuring Larry Sharpe

5 thoughts on “Austin Petersen: Libertarians and the Military, featuring Larry Sharpe

  1. dL

    The principle objective of the LP is not to advance people’s professional careers. The public choice of professional politicians and operatives may be an unavoidable consequence of political parties, but in no way should a party’s message/ideals be subsidiary to private ambition. Particularly in regards to third party politics.

    Case in point: Austin Peterson in a recent critique of Arvin Vohra here:

    Peterson claimed Vohra’s comments would have devastating consequences on libertarian outreach. Well, I agree that those comments could have devastating consequences on Peterson’s political ambitions, ambitions that apparently straddle both the libertarian and republican party. Those comments indeed are a killer RE: Peterson’s potential designs on the republican party.
    {Peterson mulling Senate run as a republican]

    Let us also note the cognitively dissonant hypocrisy of Peterson. This is how Peterson defended the 2nd Amendment In the Fox Business Libertarian debate:

    The 2nd Amendment is not for hunting. The 2nd Amendment is to shoot at tyrants if the government has become tyrannical.

    Actually, it is to shoot at the tyrant’s troops if the government has become tyrannical. The troops. The United States military in this instance. The American revolution was not won by shooting at King George. It was won by shooting at King George’s troops. If you subscribe to violent revolution as a justifiable means, then rest assured those means entail shooting at some troops.

    Now one could ask if the United States has crossed the line into tyranny using Peterson’s own standards. From this 2016 interview in Liberty Buzz:

    LB: In your view, what is the No. 1 reason to not vote for Donald Trump?

    AP: Good question. What is the No. 1 reason? Well there are so many. Well the question is that, uh, do you want a strongman? Do you love the boot heel? Do you want a free country, or do you want to live under authoritarianism? So I would say don’t vote for Donald Trump because we’re supposed to be the land of the free. Trump tries to return us back to, almost, the Italian fascist model. Where if you don’t want a government that can force businesses to move around the country or to try and force businesses to do things like move their factories overseas back to the United States, which is absolutely tyrannical, then don’t vote for Donald Trump. If you want a strongman, if you want an authoritarian, if you want the boot on your neck, then, yeah, vote for Donald Trump. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, we ask not for your counsel nor your arms. Make history forget you were our countrymen is what I say to anyone who wants the boot heel.

    If Trump victory portended a rule of Mussolini, and given that Trump won, by Peterson’s own previous statements, we are now living under a facsimile of the Italian fascist model. No one would disagree that such a rule crosses the line into tyranny. So why in the hell–given Peterson’s own previous remarks—is Peterson so offended by “anti-military” rhetoric. You got me? Other than the simple, occam’s razor explanation: he’s an opportunist. An Anti-war/pro-military position fuses the antiwar position w/ right wing political correctness that allows him to straddle both the LP and the GOP. So, while I wouldn’t by any stretch try to use Peterson’s remarks to justify taking AK-47 potshots at the troops, I would however reference those remarks to mock Peterson suddenly becoming a SJW for the troops’ feelings(the GOP is SJW safe space for any negative talk about the troops).

    Another thing. If the LP is about “winning,” then the LP is about partisan politics. Partisan brand differentiation. And it is no longer just about simple “outreach.” The people who need to made an example of are those who flirt w/ competing parties and attempt to dilute the message of one party in order to serve their own political ambition.

    Peterson’s own rhetorical history makes a mockery of his sudden outrage at Arvin Vohra’s “anti-military” statements. His own political flirtations with the GOP makes an additional mockery of using “LP winning” as any criteria for kicking Arvin Vohra to the curb. “Winning office” as a standard implies partisan politics, and partisan politics is not an open door policy. If anyone should be kicked to the curb, it should be him(if we are using “winning” as a standard). At the very least, the LNC should not be in the business of taking dictation from anyone who is openly flirting w/ competing parties.

    Lastly, I was disappointed by Larry Sharpe’s response. Sharpe didn’t go as far as Peterson, instead opting for some weak sauce. No problem with the anti-military message, just the insult. Apologize for the insult. How’s that apology supposed to be worded?

    War is a racket, the US military is an organization engaged in facilitating this racket, but I apologize to any soldiers whose motives I may have impugned with my statements. I should have clarified that just like the mob, you are “men of honor.”

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Good comments, DL.

    War IS a racket, and I’m sorry some people don’t realize that before they sign up. I’ll continue to do and say everything I can to educate young people about the evils of the US War Machine, and discourage them from ever visiting a recruiting office.

    Didn’t Lee Wrights used to ask this marvelous question: What if they gave a war, and no one came?

  3. Tony From Long Island

    Very well said dL. I don’t agree with every word, of course, but you laid it out there well.

  4. Pingback: Vohra responds to criticism again | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *