Found on Facebook
By Shane Trejo
May 11, 2017
Libertarian Party Vice Chair Releases Controversial Anti-Military Manifesto
Libertarian Party vice chair Arvin Vohra released a divisive manifesto last night deriding the institution of the military, promising a coordinated effort to counteract “the lies and bluster military recruiters use to dupe young men and women” in the months to come.
“If you were tricked by military recruiters, help prevent the same thing from happening to others. Share your experiences, and speak out boldly,” Vohra said in a Facebook post that immediately generated a polarizing reaction with most of the feedback being resoundingly negative.
“I don’t think someone is innately evil for being in the military, but I think that a lot of the military’s actions have been evil,” Keith Thompson said in response to Vohra’s sentiments. “Seems kind of collectivist to paint with that broad of a brush.”
“As someone who thought you were quite intelligent and informed, your comments remind me why the LP will never be a relevant party,” Rumman Kay replied. “Disappointed in you, bud.”
Finish the article here .
Arvin is not the one the one who opened up the can of worms. This is the can opener:
https://www.lp.org/military-personnel-vital-part-libertarian-party/
The Dallas Accord was only one disaster in Libertarian history. But, granted, it was a disaster.
“I’m sure the issue will pop back up.”
You bet it will. One of the best ways of resisting the “oh my God, you can’t say that, what will people think?” crowd is to go right out and very loudly campaign on exactly that thing.
Hopefully starting a few months from now we’ll have nice footage of LP candidates putting in some time doing counter-recruitment work outside of armed forces recruiting centers.
“BE IT RESOLVED that the Audacious Caucus of the Libertarian Party hereby denounces Whitney Bilyeu, Sam Goldstein, Tim Hagan, Caryn Ann Harlos, Daniel Hayes, Joshua Katz, James Lark, Alicia Mattson, Patrick McKnight, Ken Moellman, Steven Nekhaila, Bill Redpath, Aaron Starr, and Arvin Vohra for their complicity in the deaths of military servicemembers and their targets alike by purposefully manipulating party demographics in a counterproductive direction with their choice to advance a narrative favorable to the cult of the omnipotent state for the express stated purpose of attracting its adherents, and call for their removal from positions of responsibility at the membership’s soonest opportunity; ”
Is this a satire? Caryn Ann Harlos is a self-described “radical”; Arvin is a self-described “anarcho-capitalist”; and so on. Are the “radicals” eating their own?
Has a resolution been passed? Which is being seriously considered? Arvin is not the only one to open a can of worms and the Dallas Accord seems in tatters.
I’m sure the issue will pop back up.
lol…they themselves opened up that can of worms
So far the comments are that it’s too soon and LNC is tired of talking about the issue. Meanwhile the Audacious Caucus has sent along the following which was shared by Starchild on the LNC list:
“So far, no cosponsors”
Hopefully that will change quickly. In relation to the “all hail government employees, they’re just the bestest” resolution, it’s sort of like that sawdust looking stuff that janitors use to cover up and soak up vomit.
If you want to argue that the US is a police state, I’m not going to disagree there. However, I will disagree that it exercises an exclusionary jim crow target on libertarian/LP identity. And let us be clear: if you pose any real challenge, it will come after you with a vengeance***, libertarian or not. But the prospect of LP ballot access is not what keeps the security organs up at night.
*** E.g: Ross Ulbricht’s appeal was recently denied. Life in imprisonment for running a web site.
@ dL
okay, I was wrong …there
Thank you.
So far, no cosponsors:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Arvin Vohra > wrote:
I am seeking cosponsors for the following draft motion:
Whereas The U.S. spends more on military than the next 8 nations combined
Whereas, involvement in NATO has caused the U.S. to build a military much larger than what is needed for defense
Whereas, current military policy has destabilized regions and lead to blowback and contributed to terrorist recruitment
Whereas, trade has been able to stop problematic ideologies when violence could not, as has happened in Vietnam
Whereas current military policy has misused many well meaning individuals for purposes other than defense against aggression often as parts of attempts to act as the world’s policeman
Resolved, The Libertarian National Committee rejects and repudiates the current U.S. military policy of overreach, world policing, and nation building; demands that the U.S. military immediately shut down all foreign military bases, cease involvement in foreign conflicts, end all current foreign military operations, and bring the troops home; demands that military spending and employment, if any, be reduced to the level necessary only for defense; demands immediate U.S. withdrawal from NATO; and demands an end to all trade sanctions.
In Liberty,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party
Again, we disagree. The LP itself is only a slice of the picture, but for many people it represent the way – in non-initiative states, the only way – to vote against many other oppressive laws that discriminate against people in many other aspects of life, just as Jim Crow did. Given your history you are well aware of some of those laws and what they do to people. Specifically in the electoral context, ballot exclusion barriers are exactly like the voting discrimination perpetrated as part of Jim Crow although, yes, it was only one part – but as with today, the reason voting discrimination existed was to prevent people from exercising political power against those other forms of discrimination. Our petitioning to get on the ballot is in this analogy just like the demonstrations against voting discrimination, and by extension against the other kinds of discrimination that this voting discrimination protects. And when someone like Andy gets maced, cuffed and stuffed for petitioning outside a county library or at a state university, or when I get threatened with the same, that’s the direct equivalent of those snarling dogs in your picture above.
okay, I was wrong …there
For starters is where it starts and ends….not the same thing as Jim Crow laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state
The fact that we get arrested and threatened with arrest for the crime of begging in public locations for our equal voting rights, for starters.
yes, i’ve been arrested for crimes against the state felonies…no, i have not lived a sheltered life; In another life, I was intimately involved in the supply side of the top two peaceful black market activities. In the presence of polite company, I prefer the term “pig” over “police.” However, I have no idea what this has to do w/ comparing the plight of LP ballot access w/ that of the black man in the Jim Crow South,
Yes, I mentioned you above.
I’ve never had police set dogs on me, but I’ve had them do other things, like cuff me to the handrailing of a walkway over subway train tracks and slap me around, sending my glasses down to be destroyed on the train tracks while yelling at me drill sergeant style, when I was 17. That’s one of many examples. I haven’t been tased or pepper sprayed when petitioning for ballot access, but I know people who have. I did get put in jail for almost a month for a BS charge when working on a petition. In that case it was not a ballot access petition but it could have been. I have had wrist damage from being cuffed before; some of those times I was taken to jail, other times I was let go. Among other things.
@ dL
Not going to go around again on the merry-go-round.
That “merry go round” was about whether your interpretation of my statement(s) made any sense or not. I abandoned that because it’s ultimately besides the point; regardless of whether or not my statements were poorly expressed or not, the fact is your attacks on me rested on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
Your advocated that the LNC vice chair should not broach the topic in question,
I said I thought the way he went about handling it was done poorly. I never said he should make no commentary. I even gave some ideas on how he could have, while having the same conclusions, better present them.
served as expositor for those who wanted censure/removal for broaching said topic
Your apparent source for this was this statement I made:
“No, the argument, or at least my argument, is that third parties–or in this case, highly ranked members of said parties–should not attempt to do things like this without any apparent gain, especially when it isn’t even an actual part of the platform.”
First, I made no advocation of removing or censuring the guy (one can see my comment at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/vohra-responds-to-criticism-again/). Now, granted, that was in the larger context of such a discussion, which I actually didn’t notice because I only read the last few comments before replying and so when you quoted that particular part, I assumed it was from something he put on Facebook. Better looking at the context, I can see how that comment could have been seen as an endorsement of such, but that’s not what I meant. My main point there wasn’t even the question of the military comments, but that I thought his attempt to compare himself to the Republicans’ anti-slavery platform didn’t make sense.
and then only after it was evident that the palace coup was going to fail shrugged off a “who, me???”.
“Only after”? You made your post attacking me based on your misinterpretation on May 25, and I replied on May 26. How in the world do you expect me to try to preemptively correct your mistaken impression before you even made it?
Neither frequently nor seldom wrong. And will certainly admit it when I am…:)
Okay then, please prove it by admitting you were wrong.
“paulie
May 31, 2017 at 17:56
‘yes, it is…’
We disagree. Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent so much time in all kinds of weather petitioning – ie, begging for our right to be included on the ballot – and got run off or threatened with arrest if I didn’t leave by so many cops and security guards while doing so. And because I know some of the things other people went through when they were in fact arrested for petitioning for ballot access.”
I’m one of those people.
dL,
You act like you’ve never had the police turn dogs on you. Have you really led a life so sheltered?
We disagree. Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent so much time in all kinds of weather petitioning – ie, begging for our right to be included on the ballot – and got run off or threatened with arrest if I didn’t leave by so many cops and security guards while doing so. And because I know some of the things other people went through when they were in fact arrested for petitioning for ballot access.
Also, given that I have been in jail quite a few times for other things (don’t know whether you have or not) and have known so many people that have been in jails and prisons for a wide variety of things, I know how that can cause people to lose their homes, jobs, relationships, kids, contract various diseases, get into fights with inmates or guards and get additional time, get beaten or raped, have arrest records that follow them around for life and cause them to lose out on jobs, loans, apartment applications, adoption or custody applications…. so getting arrested has ancillary risks and consequences that can go far beyond just being arrested and doing a few days in jail.
it results in some quantity greater than 0% but less than 50%
yes, it is…
Neither frequently nor seldom so that leaves what…never? 🙂
And note the future tense on “when I am”….
We have been intimidated, threatened, arrested, jailed etc when trying to get on the ballot. Andy got pepper-sprayed by cops. Jail conditions, including when arrested in violation of our civil rights for getting ballot access signatures at public locations, can be torturous and health-damaging. So not that big of a stretch, at all.
Isn’t that a photo of the Ohio Republican Party setting the dogs on the Ohio Libertarian Party?
no doubt, but are some distinct differences when trying to reach for that historical comparison
I don’t consider us as having equal voting rights when establishment candidates are listed on the ballot and we are only listed there sometimes – and often only after we spend an inordinate amount of time begging, lobbying and/or suing about it. The right to vote is rather meaningless when the candidates you want to vote for are denied a place on the ballot and don’t have their totals reported on election night. The treatment of alt parties is separate and decidedly not equal.
Mock petitions to palliate the butthurt of about 1000 or so occupations the LNC so insensitively omitted.
Three cheers for David Demarest && Starchild…
nah, rinse and repeat the entire process for Nick Sarwark’s recent comments comparing the LP’s treatment to the african american struggle prior to the civil rights movement . If the LNC is so concerned about offending people, someone needs to assuage the butthurt over at Salon. Actually, on this one, I have to agree w/ the salon commentariat. That is a silly statement.
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/27/watch-libertarian-party-chair-compares-treatment-of-party-to-experiences-of-african-americans-before-the-60s-and-women-before-suffrage/
Well you could draft the language and see if Starchild or someone would introduce it. I’m mildly curious to see if it would get cosponsors.
It would be better if LPHQ staff just pretended it never happened.
On the other hand, I guess now is the time to get the LNC to vote on a resolution similarly honoring coffee shop baristas, who actually have productive occupations in the private sector.
Meanwhile, the policy statement with no power to actually do anything and which did not name Arvin passed. After much soul-searching Arvin voted for it.
After the motion passed, Wes Benedict initially said that staff were planning to make it a press release and email blast, but then thought about it some more and decided that it would seem weird that it came out several days after Memorial Day so will make it a LP blog post and part of a multi-subject email unless instructed otherwise.
Neither frequently nor seldom wrong. And will certainly admit it when I am…:)
JSRG,
Take my word on this: It isn’t worth it. dL is seldom wrong, but when he is he will burn the goddamn building down around him rather than admit it.
Not going to go around again on the merry-go-round. Your advocated that the LNC vice chair should not broach the topic in question, served as expositor for those who wanted censure/removal for broaching said topic and then only after it was evident that the palace coup was going to fail shrugged off a “who, me???”. Even if I took you at face value, the worst I have to do is:
Not much of a retraction…
Not retracting anything b/c there is nothing to retract…
Hrm, let’s see an example of something you claimed about me…
“Your position is that Vohra’s position cannot be debated, broached, or even spoken of by anyone holding an official capacity in LNC without penalty of expulsion. And, that, my friend, is the definition of a safe space.”
I explained how no, that was not my position, and that you completely misinterpreted my comment. How in the world is there not something to retract, when your accusation has been shown to be completely incorrect and rely on a misinterpretation of a statement that was intended to mean nothing more than “better known people get more attention when they say possibly controversial things”?
Not retracting anything b/c there is nothing to retract…
indeed, whatever…and that goes for your weak sauce , CYA shrug of “who, me????” after the palace coup failed…
Huh? I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about here.
Point is, you completely misinterpreted my remark and then attacked me based on that misinterpretation, so it would be nice if you’d retract that attack, as I wasn’t trying to say at all what you thought I was.
indeed, whatever…and that goes for your weak sauce , CYA shrug of “who, me????” after the palace coup failed…
@ dL
Perhaps if you position was proffered in a pure vacuum. However, in the context of Group G using argument A(that you affirmed) to justify consequence C, its hardly a leap to assume you likewise subscribe to consequence C, particularly given your comments rationalizing G while never repudiating C.
Whatever. Point is you were completely and entirely wrong about what I was saying, taking a statement of “more prominent people get more attention if they say something that’s seen as ‘off-beat'” and incorrectly thinking this was somehow me saying he should be kicked from his position, then attacking me based on that completely incorrect interpretation.
Perhaps if you position was proffered in a pure vacuum. However, in the context of Group G using argument A(that you affirmed) to justify consequence C, its hardly a leap to assume you likewise subscribe to consequence C, particularly given your comments rationalizing G while never repudiating C.
So, I’m a bit confused RE: the apparent blurred line between mere expositor and advocate.
In that quote, I said I didn’t think he should have said what he did, at least in the way he said it. How do you go from “I think he made a mistake” to “I support the idea he be removed from his position”? That’s utterly baffling.
I’ll admit I can finally see the chain of “logic” that led you to the completely incorrect interpretation of my comment you took, but there’s so many hoops someone has to jump through to end up with that I remain no less baffled as to you arriving at that interpretation.
Actually, in another thread you wrote:
So, I’m a bit confused RE: the apparent blurred line between mere expositor and advocate. At the very least to claim amazement at my utterly bizarre interpretation is a bit of a leaky pot
Oh, i dunno, the freakin calls to have him expelled, the proposed petitions to censure…
Neither of which I promoted nor endorsed, either in that comment or any other. My comment was a simple statement on how someone in a high authority position of the Libertarian Party (and vice chair is nearly as high as you can get) would get more flak for any controversial comment than a regular member would, hence why someone might go so far as to start a petition when that wasn’t previously done for anyone else making off-beat statements. That’s all I said. So I’m still confused as to how you ended up with the utterly bizarre interpretation you did.
Parents and former military have been working with high schoolers to persuade them not to enlist since 2007 at least. I followed that effort for a while because I knew a former Air Force pilot who was very involved. This is an example of freedom of speech. From what I heard the presentations on the reasons for not enlisting were factual.
At the same time I was in pretty constant communication with Phil Meskin, a veteran from Vietnam who had already been helping homeless vets for over a decade. Phil also acts as an Ombudsman, assisting veterans who have been unable to obtain their promised benefits. Phil was also the founder of the short-lived Veterans Party, which was founded in 2003. I initially met him when he contacted me about my Draft Norman Campaign in early 2004. I was happy to let them continue the effort to elect Schwarzkopf President of the United States. They met with the General in Florida at his home. General Schwarzkopf declined because he had been paid not to run, if asked.
Phil is still helping veterans, many of whom have been on the street for years. Here is the story of one veteran who Phil has taken off the street.
Life for an American Veteran – When Hope Turns to Ashes.
Richard had been homeless since September 2015. He had a VA ID card which he used for medical treatment at the VA. On multiple occasions he asked if they had any openings in the homeless program.
The answer was always the same; “We are all booked up and there is a waiting line to get in.”
In early December Richard got a different response. He was told they could put his name into a slot for the program. What would that slot do for him, he asked?
Richard was told the VA would provide him with housing, clothes, food, training and OR education and transportation if needed through the use of a Bus Pass. It was like he had won the lottery. Richard’s face lit up and he began signing papers. While he was signing they even mentioned getting him a haircut.
After everything was signed and papers carefully stapled together for Richard’s packet, Richard was then told that he was no longer be considered homeless. With the signing of the papers he was listed as being trained or being sent back to school to get the education needed for him to have a productive life.
As the person behind the desk stood up to shake Richard’s hand, Richard was told to return about Mid-June 2016 when the slot will open.
With a sinking hert Richard asked what do I do in the meantime?
Richard did not know the reality he faced. The VA routinely puts up to 5 people in the same slot, just like Richard. Over-booking airline seats is the closest equivilent. But that does not usually kill you.
In six months most Veterans cannot appear to receive the promised help because most will either have given up and moved elsewhere, been picked up for vagrancy by the police, been in trouble for sleeping in a public place, or for taking food from a dumpster. Many take their own lives during this period.
The VA understands all too well one Veteran may survive long enough to get into the program. If two Veterans make it…one is told to come back in another 90 days.
But the VA is off the hook. This is how the program is designed to ‘work.’
NOTE: The first Veteran’s Hospital was entirely funded by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. The National Board wrote a check for $1,000,000 in 1918 which covered the cost.
In 1915 the relative value of $1,000,000.00 from 1918 ranges from $10,700,000.00 to $236,000,000.00.
When FDR proposed Social Security he was stealing the plan, then active, provided by The Improved Order of Red Men, a fraternal order, for their members.
You have heard of this organization by another name. When they were originally constituted they were called The Sons of Liberty.
They changed to become a fraternal order in 1813 and were chartered by Congress around 1906.
FDR doubtless had a copy of their insurance package because he was a member. Earlier prominent members were: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Patrick
Henry, Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, Theodore Roosevelt and Warren G.Harding.
Oh, i dunno, the freakin calls to have him expelled, the proposed petitions to censure…
Strawman. Not what I said. I said: a party following “we were for it before we let anyone know we were for it” is impossible 3rd party politics. The standard for judging a position is the correctness of it, not the popularity of it.
Libertarians, like everyone else, have two jobs when arguing for our principles or positions.
The first job is to be right.
The second job is to be persuasive.
Arvin is right.
If those who want him removed were arguing that he isn’t persuasive, perhaps that would be a discussion worth having.
But that’s not what they’re arguing. A few of them (not many) are arguing that he’s wrong. Most of them aren’t exactly arguing at all. They’re just whining that being right offends them so nobody should be allowed to do it.
Your position is that Vohra’s position cannot be debated, broached, or even spoken of by anyone holding an official capacity in LNC without penalty of expulsion. And, that, my friend, is the definition of a safe space.
How in the world did you end up with THAT goofy interpretation? Someone asked why people would be so upset about what someone said on Facebook, noting how a lot of people do that but no one’s gone so far as making a petition. I made the observation that when the person talking is the vice chair of a political party (i.e. a more famous figure… well, relatively speaking), then people will take more notice and thus you’ll see a bigger reaction. It’s like asking why people would take more note of a celebrity saying something than a random person. That’s all.
I’m just… baffled you somehow took away the interpretation that what I was saying was “that Vohra’s position cannot be debated, broached, or even spoken of by anyone holding an official capacity in LNC without penalty of expulsion.” It’s like if I made a comment about how North America is like someone filling up a balloon with air (it gets larger and larger as you fill it up, until it bursts into pieces!) and then you came along and said I was arguing in favor of banning helium balloons. It’s about that far removed from what I was saying. Normally when someone misinterprets what I’m saying, I can understand how they arrived at their misinterpretation, but I honestly cannot see how you looked at my statement and came to the idea you did.
Personally, I find the argument that Vohra’s position is bad because it is bad optics to be a particularly bad argument.
Making yourself and by extension the party look foolish to little gain is not conducive to gaining members or support.
Gay marriage was bad optics in the 70s and 80s. The LP historical position on that issue however is very good optics today. The LP’s position on the drug war was bad optics in the 80s. However, the LP historical position on that issue is good optics today.
And one can see exactly how successful the LP was in the 70s and 80s relative to today.
Still, the problem here is not the positions of the Libertarian Party–though I would note again that Vohra’s comments are not perfectly reflective of the platform–but which positions are emphasized and how they are presented. I gave an example of how someone could reach the same conclusions as Vohra but in a way that would, I expect, have been received more positively.
At any rate, arguing that an unpopular position or presentation is totally fine because maybe in a few decades opinions will change seems a questionable argument.
No, actually someone made a statement that organized standing armies or militias were necessary to detour an otherwise inevitable invasion(generalizing a specific claim RE: the United States). I listed the 22 countries as a counter-example to that claim. The general claim is hence false. And, no, not all countries sans standing armies rely on defense by treaty with another entity. Logically, my example was a falsification of an original claim and was not proffered as its own deductive argument. There is a difference.
It’s not a strawman. I’m not misrepresenting the long soliloquy that you subsequently articulated, because my statement had nothing to do that. Instead, it had everything to do with your previous statement:
Your position is that Vohra’s position cannot be debated, broached, or even spoken of by anyone holding an official capacity in LNC without penalty of expulsion. And, that, my friend, is the definition of a safe space.
I wrote previously:
You can agree or disagree with Vohra’s position…but Arvin Vohra having that position does not relieve Arvin Vohra from his duties as Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Personally, I find the argument that Vohra’s position is bad because it is bad optics to be a particularly bad argument. Gay marriage was bad optics in the 70s and 80s. The LP historical position on that issue however is very good optics today. The LP’s position on the drug war was bad optics in the 80s. However, the LP historical position on that issue is good optics today. Third party politics is hard enough without making it impossible by playing a game of “stick your finger in the wind.”
@ dL
As it stands, I can only go by what you have posted here from my immediate recollection. Which is: (i) apparent support of the position that countries w/o standing armies(or treaties w/ standing armies for defense) would be immediately invaded and conquered by external enemies
Someone made the argument that armies aren’t necessary because some countries don’t have them, so I logically asked how many of those countries don’t happen to have an agreement, implicitly or explicitly, with a country that does have an army to help them out if they need it. It doesn’t matter if a country doesn’t have a military if they have a military at their effective disposal for defense.
(ii) the LP needs to be an official safe space for any troop talk.
Well if you want to strawman my statements to the point you end up with something with no relevance to my original claims, sure.
Arvin Vohra decided to approach the issue in a completely dumb way, which will win few if any converts and will possibly drive people off. Like it or not, most Americans, even those who don’t like things the military are doing, have a lot of respect for the people in it (at least the rank and file). So the smart thing would be to frame the issue in a way in accordance to that, by arguing that the military is engaging in all kinds of unnecessary and arguably downright immoral activities, so we should:
1) Withdraw from conflicts so that people who are enlisted aren’t being told to go and do those things, as well as keeping them out of unnecessary danger.
2) That people should refuse to join the military until these problems are fixed, making it so that (if enough people chose to do this), one of the following will happen: (a) the military will revise its policies, or (b) the military’s ranks will decline to the point they can’t perform these unnecessarily aggressive operations, either way solving the problem.
These reach the same essential conclusions as what he was saying (the military is doing bad things, and that people should avoid joining it as a result) but present them in a way that’s positive for individual members of the military, fitting with the general public’s attitudes better.
Vohra doesn’t do that… and if he is trying to, he’s doing a really poor job conveying those ideas. Instead he uses language that’s likely to turn people off and is rather unlikely to win over any converts (e.g. claiming people in the military in non-combatant roles are “accessories to murder”). Then when people (including at least one other LNC member) point out he’s not framing things well, he just doubles down on his unpopular stance (making a number of goofy-looking comments, like trying to compare it to the Republicans’ anti-slavery platform being key to their success, ignoring the many differences) and kept the issue going rather than, if not moderating himself a bit, at least dropping it for a while.
And this isn’t even a case of being true to the party or whatever, as Vohra’s statements, while not in direct conflict with the party’s platform, aren’t explicitly from them either (it does call for a defensive military). So he’s putting forth all this effort to push something that isn’t even directly from the platform.
It’s what I see too much of from the LNC. Rather than trying to push the parts of their platform that are popular, or framing them in a way that meets what there’s a lot of agreement on, they insist on either forcing down the more controversial parts or framing them in a way that’s terrible for optics. And honestly, even setting aside the military issue, I’m seeing a frustrating amount of this sort of thing on his Facebook timeline. I’ll be fair and say he’s at least kept it off the party’s Facebook from what I can tell and only had it on his own (the LP’s own facebook has its own set of issues, the biggest being it being so filled with memes rather than useful news), but if you’re vice chair of a political party anything you say is going to reflect on it and so you should be be very careful on what you say.
I was Editor of American Defense for the Libertarian Defense Caucus which I joined when working for Petr Beckmann in Boulder in 1981. I now run a blog titled libertariantranslator.com
I am looking for some of our other original contributors and writers. –hankphillips.com
well, it would helpful to link your username to a blog or an online resource so one wouldn’t be so quick necessarily of making as an apparent ass out of oneself. As it stands, I can only go by what you have posted here from my immediate recollection. Which is: (i) apparent support of the position that countries w/o standing armies(or treaties w/ standing armies for defense) would be immediately invaded and conquered by external enemies (ii) the LP needs to be an official safe space for any troop talk.
@ dL
So we should then expect useful idiots like Kevin S Bjornson and Just Some Random Guy to roll around and point to the well-armed islamic State and say: see, this is why we need national defense!!!
I actually think we’re far, FAR too involved in the Middle East and should be involved in that mess of an area as little as possible; indeed, the constant ill-advised interventions are part of the reason it’s considered an issue for us to begin with.
But hey, nice to know you make completely unwarranted assumptions about me…
Yep. There is no more abhorrent thing than “arm the state, disarm the citizenry.”
Multi-lateral disarmament by treaty would be good. Unilateral disarmament would suffice. At the very least, multi-lateral abotition of nuclear weapons and WMD. Again, unilateral abolition would suffice. Anyone against nuclear disarmament is simply NOT a libertarian. Period.
This discussion reminded me of exposes about US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq stealing millions of dollars. (Alt-right supporters of Trump didn’t get upset when he mentioned it in 2016. Some of them probably did it!) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/u_s_troops_have_stolen_tens_of_millions_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_center_for.html
Love this quote, If a journey begins w/ a first step, it is better that the first step be a recognition of the problem than a justification of it.
Daesh is my preferred term for the group based in Raqqa, Syria, but tax-subsidized weapons ending up in their hands via the main sponsors of wahabism is definitely something to think about in connection with weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, very well put dL.
dL wrote (May 25, 2017 at 04:49):
There are two ways to look at the “hard problem” of national defense. The one I prefer is that “national defense,” and hence, the nation state, is incompatible w/ libertarianism. Something like, say, involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude indeed would be a hard problem vis a vis libertarian compatibility. Of course, if you choose to abolish it, it is no longer a hard problem. Same w/ the nation state. Easier said than done, of course. But if a journey begins w/ a first step, it is better that the first step be a recognition of the problem than a justification of it.
How the organization of plunder works:
The United States arranges a massive tax-subsidized weapons sale to the primary state supporter of wahhabi islam. This ensures that the “Islamic State” will be well-armed in the future. The existence of a well-armed Islamic State hence justifies increased budgetary defense spending and more pretexts for increased state power. The very example of private benefit/public cost. Following Bastiat, this organization of plunder invariably leads to:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Having a culture in which armed civilians would support each other against any aggressor would be important, of course. Crowdfunded letters of marque and reprisal would need to be feared. Tyrants like Kim Jong Il and Vladimir Putin should be given no reason to think that aggression against people in the United States would have any other result than themselves being killed or brought to justice.
Kevin Bjornson writes (May 16, 2017 at 23:59), wisely suggests not trusting that tyrants and aggressors will follow our noble example, and lay down their arms after America first lays down it’s arms.
Being in the position of having to trust tyrants or would-be tyrants is indeed abhorrent. I for one am not a pacifist, and do not think Americans should lay down their arms and extend such trust. I only want the standing government military that the Founders feared to be abolished and the soldiers given early retirements so that we no longer have to trust that such a military might be used against us. The people must never be disarmed.
dl said, “There are two ways to look at the “hard problem” of national defense. The one I prefer is that “national defense,” and hence, the nation state, is incompatible w/ libertarianism. Something like, say, involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude indeed would be a hard problem vis a vis libertarian compatibility. Of course, if you choose to abolish it, it is no longer a hard problem. Same w/ the nation state. Easier said than done, of course. But if a journey begins w/ a first step, it is better that the first step be a recognition of the problem than a justification of it.
How the organization of plunder works:
The United States arranges a massive tax-subsidized weapons sale to the primary state supporter of wahhabi islam. This ensures that the “Islamic State” will be well-armed in the future. The existence of a well-armed Islamic State hence justifies increased budgetary defense spending and more pretexts for increased state power. The very example of private benefit/public cost. Following Bastiat, this organization of plunder invariably leads to:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
So we should then expect useful idiots like Kevin S Bjornson and Just Some Random Guy to roll around and point to the well-armed islamic State and say: see, this is why we need national defense!!! Obviously, part of the moral code today that insulates the plunder from intellectual challenge is “social critical theory” that views the language of any such intellectual challenge as a safe space violating “micro-aggression.”
Well saId.
Eliminating the nation state is happening with agonizing slowness. This has its benefits because trying out different forms for social organization requires time for beta testing. Think of Mormonism of one such experiment.
Theory on what will replace it is, as usual, appearing first in informed science fiction books. Since, historically, Libertarians read heavily in UP, Out, and science-based works you may have read one of the most popular of these, Neil Stephenson.
Ron Paul warned of the effects of Blow-Back, which today gives the appearance of having been intentionally created. It is sort of creepy to see the same assertions, based only on fevered imaginings, made which I heard in our local “Discuss Libertarian Issues,” get-to-gethers in the 1970s.
I don’t dispute the notion of private defense. I only dispute the notion of private defense applied to national security. National security is the organization of plunder….inevitably and invariably.
If they’re voluntary, they’re not taxes.
If payment for maintenance of a military became voluntary, yes, there would be “free riders.” Tough shit.
There are ways of addressing the free rider problem. For example, why offer military defense to individuals? Offer it instead to identifiable demarcated areas based on total revenue. If Alpha County finds a way to cough up $X — doesn’t matter if the local billionaire picks up the check or the county’s old ladies hold bake sales, or whatever — then they get a Patriot battery to protect from incoming missiles and are a priority defense area in case of a ground war. If not, no Patriot battery and the only way the county gets protected on the ground is if it makes tactical sense to do so in defending areas that do pay up.
And yes, there are a lot of potential problems with some kind of system of that sort emerging. I personally doubt that those problems would be as bad as the problems created by the existence of a military-industrial complex that forcibly steals a trillion dollars a year or so.
A country club will ask anyone using the golf course during business hours to pay up or leave. If they don’t do either, cops will get called. If they happen to catch teenagers sneaking in after hours they will tell them to leave and/or call cops as well. A magazine will simply not deliver copies to those who have not subscribed, although yes, copies can be shared once delivered. If a country club asked people join, but anyone can walk in and use it any time of day as many times as they want without paying and nothing is done about it how many people would keep paying? Another example is street fairs and museums that have a posted entry fee which is actually just a suggested donation. You can go in and pay less or nothing at all and nothing will be done about it, but they rely on people’s ignorance of that fact and the natural assumption that since what looks like an entrance fee is posted it must be mandatory.
So if taxes for the military became voluntary, and everyone knew they were voluntary and that there would be no consequences for not paying, how many people would still pay? I honestly don’t know. I am not going to just assume most people wouldn’t pay, but I’m not going to assume most people would either.
Here’s more special snowflake stuff. (What is it with the younger, born post 1960 generation. Too much public school “education” so they’ll be good dupes of the state and expect it to coddle their little feelings.)
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/009336.html
‘m asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy Manual
Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of, serve
as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media accounts.
Volunteer content creators may submit content for approval. ….
Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted it was not
on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, the
person’s party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we took
a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost two very
valuable volunteers over this latest disaster — volunteers who did a lot
of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans. Gone…
The other “disaster” besides being too frank about what joining the US military can lead to is the stupid Satanist quote. Only people trying really hard to attract right wing Christians would get so upset about that they’d call it a “public relations disaster”.
Of course what MS. MATTSON the abortion prohibitionist LP secretary who proposed this probably is upset about is the PRO-CHOICE memes, And the howling from all the freaking NON-libertarian prohibitionists whose goal it is to make the LP an anti-abortion party.
If these are the people the LP Facebook page is driving away – GOOD FREAKING RIDDANCE…
Correct. “National Defense” was the one “good” David Friedman could not reduce to a private good in “The Machinery of Freedom.” If you want it, you have to tax for it. It should not be treated as something that can be “privatized.” Anyone who tries to make that argument will ultimately be making some variant of the private benefit/public cost fallacy. This, of course, is the organization of plunder.
There are two ways to look at the “hard problem” of national defense. The one I prefer is that “national defense,” and hence, the nation state, is incompatible w/ libertarianism. Something like, say, involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude indeed would be a hard problem vis a vis libertarian compatibility. Of course, if you choose to abolish it, it is no longer a hard problem. Same w/ the nation state. Easier said than done, of course. But if a journey begins w/ a first step, it is better that the first step be a recognition of the problem than a justification of it.
How the organization of plunder works:
The United States arranges a massive tax-subsidized weapons sale to the primary state supporter of wahhabi islam. This ensures that the “Islamic State” will be well-armed in the future. The existence of a well-armed Islamic State hence justifies increased budgetary defense spending and more pretexts for increased state power. The very example of private benefit/public cost. Following Bastiat, this organization of plunder invariably leads to:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
So we should then expect useful idiots like Kevin S Bjornson and Just Some Random Guy to roll around and point to the well-armed islamic State and say: see, this is why we need national defense!!! Obviously, part of the moral code today that insulates the plunder from intellectual challenge is “social critical theory” that views the language of any such intellectual challenge as a safe space violating “micro-aggression.”
“The nature of military protection is not something that can be pinpointed as to who gets such protection and who doesn’t.”
Not necessarily true, but I’ll stipulate for the sake of argument.
“How do you set up a user fee?”
The same way you do for anything else. You offer a service and those who want it pay for it.
Just like you do if you own a country club (and know some teenagers are going to sneak onto the golf course at night and play without buying a membership).
Just like you do if you sell magazine subscriptions (and know that some of your readers are going to pass their copies on to neighbors, etc.).
There’s nothing complicated about it.
@ George Dance
WTF? Why are so many people upset about one guy expressing his personal opinion on facebook? A lot of people, including some LP members, express off-beat opinions on facebook; but I’ve never heard of anyone taking up a petition against it before.
Because that “one guy” is vice chairman of the Libertarian Party. It’s not like this is just some random guy (like me) posting something.
Yes, I’m trying to understand how exactly that would work. The nature of military protection is not something that can be pinpointed as to who gets such protection and who doesn’t. How do you set up a user fee?
“What exactly is the proposal?”
The proposal is “military spending should be financed with user fees.”
What exactly is the proposal? Taxes collected as at present, except you don’t get property confiscated or go to jail if you are found to not be in compliance? It’s plausible that a lot of people would still pay a donation to maintain a military out of a sense of patriotism even if there was no penalty for not paying, but without actually trying it there is no way to know how much this would actually bring in.
Something else? If so, what?
“Thane Eichenauer – The petition has made it to 429 signers.
WTF? Why are so many people upset about one guy expressing his personal opinion on facebook? A lot of people, including some LP members, express off-beat opinions on facebook; but I’ve never heard of anyone taking up a petition against it before.
Luke,
Kevin didn’t say that military spending is financed with user fees. He said that military spending should be financed with user fees.
I’m down with that. But I expect that any military organization so financed would need to maintain a healthy reserve for legal defense of wrongful death suits.
I never said taxes are user fees. If I had thought that way, I would have simply said “taxes”. I don’t propose taxes, I propose use fees. Which means, the service can be withheld if user fees not paid.
Inevitably there will be free-riders. For instance, if most merchant ships hire military protection, that would tend to discourage piracy. Even for ships without military protection, because the pirates wouldn’t necessarily know that. But likely most ships would not take that chance.
Military taxes are not “user fees”. A park entrance fee is a user fee; you only pay it if you use the park. You may benefit from having the option to use the park regardless of whether you exercised that option already, but until you do, you don’t pay. A gasoline tax can reasonably be considered a user fee as it’s the best available gauge of how much wear and tear you put on roads and how much pollution you emit by driving. If you disagree that the military makes the country more safe your taxes don’t get lowered. If you believe that it is not necessary for the US to spend as much or more on its military than the rest of the world combined, you don’t get to pay any less.
If your money is being used to protect Europe from a Soviet threat that no longer exists, tough shit; neither party that most everyone thinks has a chance of winning agrees and too many of your fellow voters believe their vote is wasted if they vote for anyone else. If you don’t believe that US meddling in the middle east, central Asia and north Africa makes either that area or the US safer, you still get extorted to pay for it. If you think relatively wealthy nations such as the gulf oil kingdoms, Japan, South Korea and Israel don’t need to have their defense subsidized by US taxpayers, the IRS still demands just as much.
Politicians can claim some theoretical benefit you derive from any conceivable government program. That claim does not make the taxes they extort for this or that program a “user fee.” User fees are only those you can decide to pay or not pay based directly on how much you personally use a given government “service.”
Thank you for posting Vohra’s recent comments. He has talked at such great length, about topics where he knows virtually nothing, I had stopped reading him.
Finally he acknowledges what I’ve been explaining to him over and over again, that the military can provide legitimate functions, and can and should be financed by user fees.
However this is only theoretical. We still disagree on facts. For instance, his view that the US entry into WW2 was wrong. I don’t think he has made a serious study of the issue, as he has shown no evidence of such an inquiry. Views such as his were the main reason the libertarian movement almost died out after Pearl Harbor, and had to be revived from near death by Rand, Friedman, etc.
He’s willing to accept a free market military, but this is just theoretical and conflicts with other things he has said, that in the meantime we need to reduce military spending by a fixed percentage and restrict US military forces to within US borders.
His factual valuations have a psychological motivation, as they are not based on a serious inquiry, and are wildly eccentric in the most off-hand fashion. While his belated theoretical positions conflict with his “in the meantime” nostrums.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/009244.html
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/009136.html
Arvin Vohra is not a yes or no issue. He is a complex man, with good and bad points.
His critics cannot really be pigeon-holed. They are real people, and like Vohra, are neither saints nor devils.
I have criticized Vohra, while listening to and understanding what he says. I’ve made many of the same points over and over again. Perhaps he listens, but he rarely responds; and on ideological issues, he never ever changes or modifies his position, all without offering anything in the way of refutation.
For instance, he offers the same nostrum of reducing military spending by a fixed percentage, which doesn’t change as years go by and circumstances change. All supposedly based on one obscure article from years ago. In reality, he has other motivations, a chip on the shoulder attitude.
His recent comments assume an extreme interpretation and valuation of US military activities, and then proceed to personally vilify US soldiers. That is an Alinsky technique, to personally target.
Has anyone….Hit wrong button.
StandUnited Republican petition site. HAas anyoen here ever heard of it before?
Even if 110 of those signers are LP members that is still a chunk of people. I’d regret losing even one though some loss may be unavoidable if those folks are unable to look at what Vorha said and see the truth and sincerity in his words or in his many followup words.
Of course, to many of the COMBAT VETERANS the support veterans are just POGUE. A new word I’ve learned in the last 15 minutes searching for a slang word for guys raped in the military. (I figured there was one!)
POGUE includes anyone doing their “dirty work”, military or civilian.
Guess I should start making the buttons now? “Forgive me, I’m just a stupid pogue.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pogue
Or fake names or impostors or who knows what else.
Probably 25% are connected to LP. The rest GOP special interest types.
It appears that the motion to remove can’t get cosponsors, so getting 2/3 seems highly unlikely. The vague non-binding policy resolution spawned by the incident (but not naming any individuals) appears set for easy, near-unanimous passage.
The petition has made it to 429 signers.
http://www.standunited.org/petition/remove-arvin-vohra-from-lp-vice-chair/
I personally hope that both sides learn something from this conflict. I am happy to support Arvin Vorha as he has shown that he is willing to listen to those that disagree with him. I can’t say the same for those calling for his removal.
Great point, Chuck (and dL). They also like to push us to change our stances on immigration and marriage equality, and sometimes the drug war.
+1
I saw there was a video by Remso Martinez on this topic. He seems to have a Republican candidate’s yard sign in the background. A Republican yard sign in the video where he is purporting to represent Libertarians. What a joke…
Republicans love to parachute in, ask us to change our platform making us pro-war and pro-life, then parachute back to the Republicans.
When I was building the mercantilism time line for http://www.greedville.org/Time-Line.html it was clear the corporate connections with governments were driving history.
“I didn’t say that soldiers shouldn’t have to justify their conduct. I said that causing collateral damage should not be considered murder. ”
And all I said is that soldiers, like everyone else, should be considered responsible for their conduct.
YOU are the one who keeps introducing the idea that causing “collateral damage” would be charged as a crime, and that that crime would be murder.
Any time you’re willing to stop tilting at the straw man you built, I’m willing to let you.
“Perhaps you should consider the Irish before asserting the British were civilized.”
Excellent point. Also don’t forget about the Indians & Afrikaners as well, especially during the 19th century.
Kevin S Bjornson
May 17, 2017 at 00:07
The Revolution was a just war. Slavery was already ceasing in the North at the time of the Revolution and the expectation was, on the part of New Englanders, that it would end because, by the mission statement on which the war was fought, it could not be tolerated. Women also expected to exercise their full rights and we still do not have them today.
New England women were better off become the Revolution than afterward in terms of their rights.
The South was not united on the issue of slavery and it was the small minority of elite wealthy who imposed the institution on the general population. Middle class Southern men were expected to provide service to keep the black population under control, without pay.
Now, take into account the betrayal of the Declaration which occurred with Shay’s Rebellion and clearly elite men, even Americans, were not to be trusted. C.ourtesy to another elite male does not prove they were civilized, and by descent George was a member of the English aristocracy. His lines intermarried with the Spencers and his mother was a Ball.
rebootinglibertariani2016/11/why-hillary-and-corporate-cabal-lost.htmlsm.blogspot.com/
Note that the elite males who quashed the Shays Rebellion meted out very different penalties to ordinary Americans than were received by members of their own elite.
Perhaps you should consider the Irish before asserting the British were civilized.
“In this model for behavior is a soldier responsible for knowing if they are engaged in a just war?”
[K] My hypothetical example did not address that question. A “war” is just a name for a collection of actions, hard to know when to start or stop counting. This particular episode feature home owners who themselves were not combatants (at most willing enablers).
The natural law defining human justice, pertains to all natural persons (no matter which side in a war), in all places and times. I maintain that the rules of combat proposed, would raise the bar so high as to effectively exclude the possibility of a military force. in fact, two others applauded that very notion, apparently on the ground that tyrants and aggressors will follow our noble example, and lay down their arms after America first lays down it’s arms.
” If they realize the action is unjust do they have a right to defend themselves in the face of justified violence undertaken in legitimate self-defense?”
[K] Whether or not one side clearly is more just than the other side, (under the proposed rule of engagement) each soldier would have an insurmountable legal barrier to military service. Because inevitably both the good guys and bad guys cause harm to non-combatants, who are in the vicinity of the target.
But that aside, your question is tautological. Of course, those who knowingly assist an unjust war, are themselves participating in injustice. Ideally they ought to surrender. When that is not possible, we have to expect them to do what is necessary to survive; and if they escape, they will likely never face justice, unless prominent like at the Nuremberg trials. We can’t expect all common soldiers to know what is right, but if they do what is wrong, then wrong may rightly be done to them.
“America’s Privateers were engaged in a just war, with issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal. After the war, former Privateers still taking ships, after they learned the war was over, were declared guilty of piracy. A force was sent to arrest them.”
The American Revolution was not a just war, as Britain had just rendered the Mansfield Decision, which outlawed slavery in Britain; and just a short time after, in 1833, outlawed slavery in all it’s possessions. In any event, seizing private merchant ships is a violation of property rights, worse than collateral damage as it is deliberate. If strategic goods, perhaps a necessary target, yet problematic as this creates a harm to non-combatants that theoretically could be addressed in court after the war.
By contrast, Britain was more civilized; and allowed Gen Washington to retain his business interests there, even as the war raged.
Jill said, “Now you’re catching on. The point is for no one to sign up as a soldier.
What if they gave a war, and nobody came? That’s my goal.”
And that would be a very good thing!
I didn’t say that soldiers shouldn’t have to justify their conduct. I said that causing collateral damage should not be considered murder. For one thing, there is probably no mens rea, that is, intention or knowledge of criminal wrongdoing.
I say that causing collateral damage (death to humans) IS murder. It’s time to call it for what it is.
For instance, suppose you are a soldier being fired upon by soldiers occupying a house. You didn’t know, but the owners of the house are still there; and while not combatants, may or may not have given permission for that use of their house. You fire upon the house and the house owners are killed, yet the house owners did not themselves initiate force. At worst, they consent to the use of their house as a platform for the use of force.
The point is to keep someone from even being in that position. I believe murder is murder, whether someone meant to do it or not.
Charging such a soldier with murder, or even manslaughter, would discourage him from firing upon the house. This places the hapless soldier on the horns of a dilemma–get shot at, desert, or be charged with a crime.
The point is to discourage him from firing by not even being there in the first place.
Such a high standard of conduct for soldiers, would require conscription, as no soldier in his right mind would take that kind of legal risk. That much should be obvious.
Now you’re catching on. The point is for no one to sign up as a soldier.
What if they gave a war, and nobody came? That’s my goal.
In this model for behavior is a soldier responsible for knowing if they are engaged in a just war? If they realize the action is unjust do they have a right to defend themselves in the face of justified violence undertaken in legitimate self-defense?
America’s Privateers were engaged in a just war, with issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal. After the war, former Privateers still taking ships, after they learned the war was over, were declared guilty of piracy. A force was sent to arrest them.
http://freedomfems.blogspot.com/2017/05/privateers-paye-financed-defense-of.html
I didn’t say that soldiers shouldn’t have to justify their conduct. I said that causing collateral damage should not be considered murder. For one thing, there is probably no mens rea, that is, intention or knowledge of criminal wrongdoing.
For instance, suppose you are a soldier being fired upon by soldiers occupying a house. You didn’t know, but the owners of the house are still there; and while not combatants, may or may not have given permission for that use of their house. You fire upon the house and the house owners are killed, yet the house owners did not themselves initiate force. At worst, they consent to the use of their house as a platform for the use of force.
Charging such a soldier with murder, or even manslaughter, would discourage him from firing upon the house. This places the hapless soldier on the horns of a dilemma–get shot at, desert, or be charged with a crime.
Such a high standard of conduct for soldiers, would require conscription, as no soldier in his right mind would take that kind of legal risk. That much should be obvious.
Kevin,
Your argument continues to come down to “soldiers should not be required to justify their conduct, because nobody would be a soldier if soldiers’ conduct had to be justified.”
Which, in turn, is a de facto concession that the conduct in question isn’t justified.
So again: If the conduct is justifiable, why would anyone fear justifying it? You want both the former and the latter to be true. Unfortunately for you, I’m not going to let you have it both ways.
PS. I spent many years reading everything written in the Movement. No offense, but there is little new there. Nothing, in fact, on neurobiology or other science which has changed our understanding.
This is a neat video.
http://www.openculture.com/2011/03/freesapolskycourse.html
Put up the video showing this minor point is relevant. Then tell us about why Homer did not understand the economy as it existed in his time.
Soldiers need courage, not stupidity. No reasonable soldier would attack enemy positions, knowing that there might be non-combatants among them, if they might be charged with murder for collateral damage.
That much should be obvious.
The consensus of scholars is that nomadic hunter-gathers raided farmers, not the other way around. Because agriculture created surplus value, and tied farmers to a specific area; so they were a valuable target, and at the same time, because they didn’t travel as much, didn’t have as much opportunity to raid those with stored wealth (i.e. farmers/ranchers). See my treatise:
http://www.defenliberty.net
Tough to be sure of the details except where behavior comes into historical periods or is traceable through pre-history. As part of her doctoral dissertation the author of Women’s Work, The First 20,000 Years, included all available evidence on the production of cloth and other early technologies. This is still associated with women today and Homer clearly placed it as women’s work.
I have never seen a serious assertion women were warriors to any degree, despite Clan of the Cave Bear, which is a fun novel. Caring for small children and babies makes it tough to hunt, too.
Personally, having babies even cut down on my fishing, and I did not have to worry about predators getting them as other non-fishing persons (like my mom and dad or brother) were often available for duty.
“And then human bands settled down with agriculture and it was possible to apply their specialization to raiding other groups. This is the origin of war, allowing men to evade that boring work in the fields.”
This sounds wrong. Rustow says it was nomads or herders raiding farmers; all the farmers did was produce a surplus that could be appropriated.
Of course, Rustow was a man. 🙂
Since offensive war is just an organized way to steal perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of causality in relation to ‘war.’ This brief, truncated satire is intended to spark thought on the subject of war.
Our ancestors broke activities into generally gender based work. Women gathered plants, grain, small animals and insects, hunted small animals resistant to be gathered, processed carcasses brought back from the regular, but infrequent hunting expeditions of the men, processed plants into materials for flavoring meals and for medicinal use, treated band members using those medicinal plants and passed on information on recurring needs, such as assisting with birth and other reproductive needs. Women made tools which could also be used as weapons.
Women invented string, which became thread and began weaving and built looms, becoming the inventors of cloth, the first product light and durable enough to make sense for trade.
Women preserved food, processed it for future use, a practice they took up much, much earlier because females who failed to do this starved when they could not care for babies and children and also provide their own food. Women joined together for these purposes, these groupings generally originally forming around mothers and their children, who thus learned these skills and became bonded groups, extended families. Eventually, young boys would be initiated into the work of men.
Men hunted and made weapons. When not hunting (most of the time) they sat around and talked about such subjects as why there were stars in the sky, what these really were and other interesting subjects. Writing had not been invented so they could not sell each other books or religion.
The ancient Goddess religion was unchanged for tens of thousands of years and based exactly on the work women were carrying out.
And then human bands settled down with agriculture and it was possible to apply their specialization to raiding other groups. This is the origin of war, allowing men to evade that boring work in the fields.
This was followed soon by the enslavement of people who could be useful.
References to anthropology, archaeological finds, and other resources are available if you are interested.
“Such a policy would make waging war impossible. Because no soldier will take the risk of being charged with murder, if their actions cause collateral damage.”
So one minute, they’re heroes who are willing to die in defense of country and the next minute they’re cowards who would fall apart if compelled to justify their actions.
Care to make up your fucking mind?
calling a spade a spade is neither name-calling nor a logical fallacy
Name-calling and putting words in my mouth, are not rational arguments.
The corollary to freedom is responsibility for our own actions. Always.
As Tom mentioned, false dilemma. The choices are not just pacifism and aggression.
Your “head” fits the profile of a sociopath. Only a sociopath(or someone w/ a mind for rent) would equate the vast US military overseas occupation/interventionism w/ defensive action.
Such a policy would make waging war impossible. Because no soldier will take the risk of being charged with murder, if their actions cause collateral damage.
“In war, there is no way to avoid all initiation of force (against non-combatants).”
I didn’t say there was.
I said that in addition to the alternatives of eschewing war or excusing initiation of force against non-combatants, there is a third one: Holding those who initiate force against non-combatants responsible for their deeds.
Surely if the cause for war is so just and the initiation of force is so necessary, those who do it are willing to take responsibility for it? If not, apparently they aren’t as sure of the justice and necessity as they claim.
In war, there is no way to avoid all initiation of force (against non-combatants).
Kevin,
The end point is only pacifism if we accept the false alternative of:
1) No initiation of force; OR
2) Excusing “collateral damage.”
There is a third alternative: Treating individuals as responsible for their actions.
The logical end point of Vohra’s narrative, is pacifism. Because any time force is used, even in defense or retaliation, there is a possibility of collateral damage. His views are not based on an unbiased analysis of facts, but rather are deduced from assumptions that exist in his head, that do not correspond with external reality.
Well said, Carol. A political party is a tool, that is all. It deserves no loyalty of sacrifice if it is not doing the job. The LP has an astonishing record of failure because it does not work for solutions which take power from the state. We are going to demonstrate how communities can protect themselves from the impact of pollution in an economic model that is voluntary and sustainable. Check it out.
My lastest comment all over facebook because I just can’t help sharing 🙂
While Arvin was obviously on a “thought experiment” roll, any libertarian reading with a cool and rational mindset should be able to understand that he is exploring important issues that we civilians have a right to explore in regards to the military. He could have been a bit more sensitive here and there, but the hypersensitivity on the party of veterans and others is really uncalled for. Military members and veterans are no more valuable as human beings than doctors or teachers or cybersecurity experts or plumbers, all of whom perform important functions. And soldiers, just like members of those professions, can form special interest cartels asking for special privileges from the state. Civilians and libertarians have a right to question and oppose those.
Militaries all over the world through most of history have been used primarily to suppress their own people, including through creating “enemies” to give them an excuse to suppress them. And the US military has acted like an imperialist force since the 1898 Spanish American war, and most especially since the 1991 Gulf War. The US intends to remain the world’s superpower crushing any nation that refuses to serve US interests, even if it means nuclear war. And with the military pushing for war vs. North Korea and Iran, with a President who sees military aggression as proof of his own manhood, that could happen any day now. Young potential soldiers need to know that and be aware of the moral choices they face. That was the major point of Vohra’s posts.
While maybe only 20% of libertarians are anarchists opposed to all militaries, libertarians overwhelmingly support the right to secession from larger states by individuals, communities, cities, states and regions. And some of those new entities might decide to abolish a standing army in preference for other modes of defense. Libertarian anarchists, decentralists, radical minarchists, etc are not going away and will not be silenced. Nor will libertarian minarchists. Sometimes they speak a bit harshly about members of the state apparatus.
Get used to it. You can handle it.
Vohra to LNC list last night; separate article later:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/009010.html
So, why should the LP give a rat’s ass about what he thinks?
(i) personally, drinking liquor with a bunch dudes at a roundtable was never my thing…literally or metaphorically.
(ii) Remso attends Liberty U(Jerry Falwell). Drinking alcohol would be a Honor code violation. A fineable offense. I think even viewing R-rated movies is a fineable offense over there.
(iii) Remso’s defense of the military was a fine example of identifying one’s own private interest with the public interest. Should be the first logical fallacy that any libertarian learns to debunk. Remo apparently never learned that.
“Lower-case libertarian” either means
(i) one views the LP as not libertarian enough
(2) eschews politics/political parties as means
(3) rejects libertarianism but prefers the label over conservative b/c the latter is no longer chic/cool.
I support Arvin Vorha. I spent time reading the entire source article (currently at 51 comments) which has a quote from the one and only James Weeks III. The article closes with “It remains to be seen if his comments jeopardize Vohra’s future in a leadership role within the Libertarian Party.” I found the article to be fair.
That being said there is a bit of support for the statement that “Pressure is building on Vohra to resign his post, but not every libertarian is up in arms over his comments.” Remso Martinez, who has stated that he is no longer a Libertarian as of six months ago, started a petition directed at the LNC which currently has 282 signatures.
http://www.standunited.org/petition/remove-arvin-vohra-from-lp-vice-chair/
I recently listened to a podcast episode titled “Libertarians in Living Rooms Drinking Liquor: Extra Spicy Edition!” which included Remso Martinez (no doubt qualifying as one of those lower case l libertarians I hear about) where he asserted the US armed forces as being “a global force for good”.
The other three participants included Marc Clair, Johnny “Rocket” Adams of the Johnny Rocket Launch Pad and John Odermatt of “Felony Friday. All gave their take on Vorha’s words.
http://lionsofliberty.com/2017/05/15/295/
Geez, the DEEP STATE has had a lot of posters on this. It would be scary EXCEPT that these people aren’t libertarian and we’re delighted if they take all their NOT libertarian friends out of the party. Especially the abortion prohibitionists. We don’t need these d**b f**ks.
What Mr. Vohra is doing and he needs to say more explicitly is that not only are soldiers morally responsible for the crimes of the military, they also can be personally responsible and some day could be held accountable.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles US TROOPS are responsible for the CRIMES they commit, even if under orders. And don’t think that someday they will NOT have to pay. Even if it’s 20 years from now. I certainly would LOVE to Cheney and Bush’s ill-gotten wealth taken and then imprisoned. Plus all the torturers and prisoner abusers. And the guys who shot and bombed innocent people, of which more are innocent than not of those they kill.
By the way LIBERTARIANS FOR PEACE has a Facebook page. And one of these days soon http://libertarians4peace.net will get the same makeover as http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/ has gotten of late.
@12:10 dL, I stand corrected. I had forgotten them. George
Nate – “You take the alliance with Britain as a given, but it shouldn’t be. Britain was historically not our ally, going back to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. There wasn’t a good reason to ally with Britain in the first world war.”
Whatever the reason, the U.S. alliance with Britain was a ‘given’ by 1939. There were of course people who opposed it, and argued that the U.S. should stay out of the war; but I don’t know of anyone at the time suggesting, as you are, that the U.S. should have gone into war on Hitler’s side instead.
… and given Britain’s alliance with Stalin, there wasn’t a good reason to ally with Britain in the second either.
But “Britain’s alliance with Stalin” came well after the U.S. began supporting Britain. At the time that began, Stalin was allied with Hitler, and co-operating with him on dividing up Eastern Europe.
Already have one of those…The Libertarian Defense Caucus
https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianPartyDefenseCaucus/
Perhaps some readers need to form a “Libertarians for Militarism and Fascism” caucus.
Video description: “World War II began 21 years after the end of World War I, but many historians believe that the two wars were part of one vast global conflict.”
Did WWI Lead to WWII? | History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBI6ZzaP2Uk
Before anyone jumps to any conclusions based on the title of the video below from Larken Rose, it is not pro-Nazi, but rather, it points out that most people don’t even know what a Nazi, or a communist, is, and that wars are generally between competing gangs of thugs.
Larken Rose: What’s So Bad About Nazis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1XxMuFfdRo
Nate,
I did not claim that the alliance with Britain was a good idea or a smart policy. I just claimed that the US WAS, in fact, allied with Britain from the moment World War II started. The US embargoed trade with Germany and started supplying Britain via Lend-Lease. Those are just historical facts.
Your question was, why ally with Stalin against Hitler instead of the other way around?
The answer is: The alliance of the US with Britain against Hitler was in place before Hitler attacked Stalin, and thus the US alliance with the Soviet Union was an artifact of Stalin changing sides, not of the US just deciding offhand that they preferred Stalin to Hitler.
You take the alliance with Britain as a given, but it shouldn’t be. Britain was historically not our ally, going back to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. There wasn’t a good reason to ally with Britain in the first world war, and given Britain’s alliance with Stalin, there wasn’t a good reason to ally with Britain in the second either. Earlier you pointed out how Roosevelt goaded Japan into war. He did that because he wanted an excuse to ally with the UK and fight against Germany. Thus, your reply just moves things forward to a point where the crucial decisions were already made and events were already in motion and does not address the fundamental question. Why was Roosevelt so eager to get into the war on the side of Britain and was he allying the US with the most murderous side in that conflict?
“I take it that none of you have an answer to that question.”
You take it wrong, then.
The US alliance with the Soviet Union was incidental.
If Hitler had not turned on Stalin, broken the German/Soviet non-aggression pact, and launched Operation Barbarossa, the US still would presumably have come into the war against Hitler because of its de facto alliance with Britain, and therefore at least nominally against Stalin as well.
Churchill had entered into alliance with Stalin well before the US entered the war, so the US was joining an existing alliance, not creating a new one from scratch (the US added the Soviet Union to Lend-Lease pursuant to Britain’s request that it do so; the first US aid shipment arrived a few days after the Russians turned Hitler’s army back from Moscow).
“Would this person happen to be pretending to be “Nate” now? I bet this is so.”
No, it’s not. I don’t know who did that and I don’t approve of them doing that. But you are deflecting. Why are you so unable to deal with the underlying question?
Let’s try an analogy here. You know you have a serial killer operating in your town and you try to stop him. But in order to stop him, you make an alliance with an even bigger serial killer who has killed more people, and operated longer, and has more young women chained up in his basement. The price for stopping the first guy is that you have to let the second guy keep doing his thing for a few more decades. Does this make any sense? Why would you do that?
Never even mind that the only way you even know who some of the first killer’s alleged victims are is by taking the word of the second killer. For all we know the second guy may be pawning off some of his own victims on the first guy. But even if we presume that the second guy, who just so happens to be the most prolific murderer of all time, is completely honest, we still have the glaring question of why we would want to be on his side in the murderers’ quarrel.
I take it that none of you have an answer to that question.
Actually, the principle tenet of anarchism is that authority has to demonstrate its legitimacy…and territorial monopoly government doesn’t pass the test. I would say liberalism in practice catastrophically violates liberalism in theory…and libertarianism is the science of how this done in a rationally systematic way.
“Nate
May 13, 2017 at 20:18
Someone pretending to be Andy Jacobs wrote:”
Would this person happen to be pretending to be “Nate” now? I bet this is so.
Ask yourself why you can’t respond logically as opposed to emotionally, or by trying to put it out of mind. Why is it OK to ally with Stalin against Hitler but not the other way around? Was Stalin less murderous?
Someone pretending to be Andy Jacobs wrote:
“While it is true that the Germans did some brutal things during the war…” — Michigan Voter
That’s true, but so did the allies, and a lot of the brutal things the Germans did may have been exaggerated. After all the victors write the accounts of the war. Plus the Soviets killed millions of people too, in fact, even if we are to believe the Germans did everything they are accused of the Communists still killed and enslaved a lot more people, in many more countries, and for longer than the Nazis. Is it too hard to consider the possibility that a lot of the people accused of being killed by the Nazis were really killed by the Communists in reality? And let’s not forget our own government. After all our government is not above carrying out false flag attacks like 9/11 and Sandy Hook. And it was not above allowing the Japanese to attack in Pearl Harbor which Roosevelt personally knew about ahead of time, or above dropping atomic bombs on Japan, or killing whole cities full of German civilians. So who’s to say how many of the people that we are told the Germans killed were killed by the US and the UK, as well as the USSR.
Let’s remember that the forces that Germany was fighting, such as Bolshevism, Zionism, Stalinism, New World Order globalists, Freemasons, Illuminati, international bankers, globalist media, multiculturalism, and the satanic tribal gods of Judaism as exposed by Michael Hoffman and the great libertarian hero Chuck Baldwin. To a large extent that is the same array of enemies that we Sons of Liberty are fighting today. These enemies are ruthless and evil and it takes some ruthlessness to fight them, and let’s not forget also that they are consummate and pathological liars so we should not necessarily believe the extent of the atrocities they attribute to the Germans. Remember how they made up lies about Iraqis killing babies in Quwaiti hospitals? So to say the very least the USA should never have allied with Stalinist Russia to fight Germany. We should have either remained neutral, or perhaps fought on the other side.
This person should not pretend to be Andy, but the comment makes a lot of sense.
@ dL
The general point is that United States over its history has never gone a decade w/o war. It’s behavior rivals that of the old imperial powers of France and England. When the motivation has not been outright theft, subjugation or imperialist conquest, it’s actions often appear little more in practice to be to fight a war to setup the next war.
I wasn’t referring to the United States, which is why I referred to the countries that Hitler threatened. The mention was that World War II had 55 million deaths and that was (obviously) quite bad. I said that, sure, that was bad, but what was the alternative, exactly? The United States perhaps had the luxury of staying out of the conflict because it had the fortune of having an ocean separating it from Germany and Japan, but what exactly did they expect the countries that were actually close to Germany to do? Just sit back and let Hitler conquer them without a fight?
George,
See what I mean? Perfect record.
TK – I must say that you have a near perfect record of missing the point whenever you respond to anything I say. Good work maintaining that record this time out.”
Really? Your point was that it would be ‘odd’ to find a caucus of veterans in the Libertarian Party because veterans are “ex-government employees”. My reply was that you only find that odd because, as an anarchist, you have a definitional belief that all governments, and therefore all government employees, are opposed to liberty.
George,
I must say that you have a near perfect record of missing the point whenever you respond to anything I say. Good work maintaining that record this time out.
Actually, the idea of standing armies(or at least large ones) was pretty odd to a lot people prior to WW II.
Holocaust denial(i.e, fake history) is not what I’m referring to vis a vis revisionism.
TK – “I find it odd that the LP would have an at least notional formal caucus composed of members whose basis for claiming special status is “we were once government employees / workfare recipients.”
Naturally: to an anarchist of any kind, the very idea of a government military is ‘odd’, to say the least.
Just to be clear, I do feel the U.S. government was acting as the aggressor against Japan. I also agree we should question the traditional holocaust story. Given the strong opinions pertaining to the matter I will withdraw from the conversation. I’ve had my say. Thanks.
Should read The Victory at Sea. Dadgum auto text.
Probably gonna get lost in the shuffle here but I didn’t see it mentioned but could have missed it. For what its worth I agree with Vohra and agree with those questioning American involvement in WW2. Its never wrong to ask why. Please see the U.S. government sponsored “documentary” ‘Re Victory at Sea’ early on the narrator states that U.S. Navy vessels were actively engaging Japanese vessels in Chinese territorial waters. The quote is the Navy was at war while the country wasn’t. Doc has this occurring well before 1941. I believe the timeline begins about ’38 or ’39 but I could be mistaken I haven’t seen the film in years. If you get a chance please check it out.
“Probably the most far-out materials on World War II revisionism have been the seemingly endless scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author [Hoggan] of ‘The Myth of the Six Million’ has presented a solid case against the Establishment’s favorite horror story —the supposed moral justification for our entry into the war.”
A google search on “Reason magazine Holocaust Denial” is enough to show how strong emotions still are, 40 years later.
………
Present the math to the believers and they don’t have a reason, but make excuses. Not only that, but alongside the holocaust, point out the near genocide committed here on Indians and they get apopleptic.
“D’Arcy: I’ve opposed every U.S. military intervention in my lifetime, but I have to say that I’m astonished — truly astonished — by some of the comments in this thread.”
I can understand that. We both grew up watching the WWII narrative on TV, everywhere from Rat Patrol to Star Trek. No doubt we both saw the same films, of what we were told were Jewish concentration camps, every year in school. As soon as the word ‘Nazi’ gets mentioned, that’s enough to trigger a emotional reaction, best described as repugnance; for us and (even more understandably) for people who lived in the war.
It was still a touchy subject in the 1980’s. I remember the leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada trying to get me a job at the National Citizen’s Coalition; and being turned down because my gig at the time (editor of an anti-communist paper called Speak Up, had a columnist, RCMP spy Pat Walsh, who had a newsletter that had run an ad for The Myth of the Six Million.
It’s still a touchy subject today. Back in the 70’s, Reason devoted an issue to WWII revisionism. You may have read it; I still have the copy). One article, by the admittedly loony Gary North, had one paragraph on the Holocaust, saying:
“Probably the most far-out materials on World War II revisionism have been the seemingly endless scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author [Hoggan] of ‘The Myth of the Six Million’ has presented a solid case against the Establishment’s favorite horror story —the supposed moral justification for our entry into the war.”
A google search on “Reason magazine Holocaust Denial” is enough to show how strong emotions still are, 40 years later.
hmmm, you have never read any left-wing revisionist history? Howard Zinn, William Appleman Williams, Gabriel Kolko et al?
I did NOT post the comment from May 13th. 2017, at 8:19. This comment was posted by a troll. Somebody take it down, and throw this fake chickenshit asshole out of here.
Geez Andy… talk about tap dancing in a minefield!
Just Some Random Guy
May 12, 2017 at 23:32
@ Michigan Voter
World War II was the biggest disaster ever. 55 million dead. The end result was the Communism reigned supreme in Asia and eastern Europe.
Okay. Fair enough. What would be your proposed alternative? To have the threatened countries just shrug and instantly surrender to the Germans with no fight? Or for England and France to declare war on Germany earlier, attacking the country when it was weaker and thus cutting down on casualties due to an easier victory?
…………
Get more Americans killed? How did that stop the alleged threat of communism taking over the world?
Yes I said alleged threat. That alleged threat opened the door for what we’re experiencing now and it could be argued got JFK shot.
Regardless of the excuses, war is a racket that benefits the few. Regardless of the excuses, attacking someone not threatening harm on your person or property is immoral. Nobody wanted the US involved in ww’s except the “leaders” who benefited.
Young men fight wars for old men. Poor men fight wars for rich men.
I find it odd that the LP would have an at least notional formal caucus composed of members whose basis for claiming special status is “we were once government employees / workfare recipients.”
“Often libertarian get blamed for being anti-American or “blame America first.” Well, who do you want me to blame?”
Yep, and the answer is……..
“Condemnation” implies moral judgment.
Vohra didn’t issue “condemnations of anyone who would even enter the military” in his post. In fact, he did exactly the opposite and held that people who enter the military are conned, defrauded, bilked into doing so.
I don’t agree that that’s necessarily the case either, but making a group of people out to be victims is the opposite of making that group of people out to be victimizers.
‘Military recruiters have done bad things’ is seriously not the same as ‘the military has done bad things’. Recruiters have been notorious for interesting recruitment schemes since, oh, the time of Alexander the Great. At least. And complaints about recruitment leading to recruits who were unaware they might have to engage in combat as noted in my prior remark can iirc be sourced to, among other people, Colin Powell, who noted the issue.
“While it is true that the Germans did some brutal things during the war…” — Michigan Voter
You think?
I’ve opposed every U.S. military intervention in my lifetime, but I have to say that I’m astonished — truly astonished — by some of the comments in this thread.
The general point is that United States over its history has never gone a decade w/o war. It’s behavior rivals that of the old imperial powers of France and England. When the motivation has not been outright theft, subjugation or imperialist conquest, it’s actions often appear little more in practice to be to fight a war to setup the next war.
Invariably, the war apologists go right to WW II–out of the 100 or so wars in American history–as some sort of gotcha moment. Of course, the practical result of WW II was to trade partial European domination by Hitler w/ partial European domination by Stalin. Some trade. The American people in the deal got a permanent cold war security bureaucracy and permanent central planning in health care(WW II started health insurance as a form of compensation) and education(WWII started the federal involvement in subsidizing education).
Oh, what about Imperial Japan? Hmm, beside pointing out that Hawaii was an imperial annexation at the time(1941), it also bears pointing out that United States directly facilitated the Japanese Meiji Restoration. You know, the not so unpredictable consequence of the US Navy sailing in to Tokyo Bay and demanding at gunpoint the Convention of Kanagawa trade treaty.
Often libertarian get blamed for being anti-American or “blame America first.” Well, who do you want me to blame? Lichtenstein? I’m certainly not naive to think there would have be no war sans American imperialism, but I’m also not the fool to sign a liberty suicide pact with imperialism because of the reality of war.
The question of what would we should have done in the 1940s is an unfalsifiable red herring. The past is the past. I know what we should do now. Break the suicide pact! War is the health of the state.
Oh, the dire warning of political Islam? We can’t break the pact now!!!! I suppose one means Wahhabi Islam. Unfortunately, the effect of US Foreign policy in the Middle East, Northern Africa, southwest Asia has been to spread Wahhabi Islam. Intentionally at first, as means to counter Soviet influence/client states. Soviet client states in the region were secular left. Now as a bona fide observable result of US interventionism in the region…intended or not. Yesterday the enemy was al-qaeda, a Wahhabi Islamic asymmetric war organization. Today, it is ISIS, the Islamic State. Fighting ISIS sets up the next war. And I can guarantee you, it will be an even scarier boogeyman. Guessing: something along the lines of the Islamic Empire.
Arvin says
I don’t think Arvin thinks he is stupid. I don’t think he is stupid, and I don’t know anyone who knows him who thinks he is stupid. But he has been misled. So have I. How many people can say they have never been misled about anything ever?
@ Michigan Voter
World War II was the biggest disaster ever. 55 million dead. The end result was the Communism reigned supreme in Asia and eastern Europe.
Okay. Fair enough. What would be your proposed alternative? To have the threatened countries just shrug and instantly surrender to the Germans with no fight? Or for England and France to declare war on Germany earlier, attacking the country when it was weaker and thus cutting down on casualties due to an easier victory?
Stupid and misled are two different things.
@ Thomas L. Knapp
Well, if that’s why he caught flak, I assume that whoever he’s catching flak from can cite an example of such condemnations.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for such an example, because I’m guessing the chance that it actually happened doesn’t exceed one in one thousand.
Well, if we look at the facebook post…
https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1511726878858800
All of these are essentially answered with either “you’re just being misled” or “you’re immoral.” So, essentially, he says anyone in the military is either immoral or stupid. Seems like an admonishment of anyone who is in the military to me. He also seems to have declared that people in the military who aren’t in combat rules are “accomplishes to murder” and while ordinarily I’d dismiss that because I don’t know the exact comment where it was stated, I saw a screencap of it and the post at https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1513441192020702 indicates he did.
I actually think there’s merit to the argument that encouraging people not to join the military due to our bad foreign policies (though to be fair, much of the blame for that goes to the Executive and Legislative branches), because if enough people who would have joined the military choose not to, that would either force change or weaken it to the point it would have to take a more non-interventionist role to begin with. Unfortunately, he didn’t express it that way, and it feels like he keeps digging himself in deeper each new time he tries to post on the subject.
kids who had joined the military to learn a career — that was a promise at the time — were astonished to learn that they might have people shooting at them, and in some cases took less than well to the experience. That was unsatisfactory recruitment.
Every person know who has signed up for the military has been told they won’t see combat. In fact, we had a brouhaha in a neighboring town a couple years ago that recruiters had been lying to recruits–but nothing came of it. I’m sure they still tell the same lies.
I personally believe the recruiters will be judged accordingly.
I am reminded of an outcome of our second war on Iraq, namely the army had in it all these kids who had joined the military to learn a career — that was a promise at the time — were astonished to learn that they might have people shooting at them, and in some cases took less than well to the experience. That was unsatisfactory recruitment.
World War II was the biggest disaster ever. 55 million dead. The end result was the Communism reigned supreme in Asia and eastern Europe.
Roosevelt did everything he could to incite the Axis and get America into the War. While it is true that the Germans did some brutal things during the war, I don’t think they would have killed 55 million people if there had not been a world war.
Typo in your email address.
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? None of my others were.
Regardless of the excuses for ww2, or any war except the revolution, (and it seems even its result has been) war is a racket for the few. The results of unintended(?) consequences that result in loss of liberty here and the enrichment of the few (comparatively speaking). Our worry should not be other nations fighting each other. Trade with all, ally with none.
There’s a principle (by Robert Townsend) I strongly believe that every “leader” should espouse and practice.
“True leadership is for the benefit of the follower, not the enrichment of the leader.”
Our wars (foreign or domestic) and politicians don’t.
“[Vohra] caught flak because of his condemnations of anyone who would even enter the military.”
Well, if that’s why he caught flak, I assume that whoever he’s catching flak from can cite an example of such condemnations.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for such an example, because I’m guessing the chance that it actually happened doesn’t exceed one in one thousand.
Well, in this thread what I referred to as “crackpot” was passing off roman republicanism as “original libertarianism.” And I said laissez faire traces back to the Chinese by way of the French Physiocrats. The genealogy of modern libertarianism begins w/ Thomas Paine.
I was referring more to him holding Britain.
It wouldn’t have mattered. The Russian people would never have submitted to German rule regardless. Sure, Hitler could have destroyed some cities, but his goal was not to leave the country uninhabitable. Russians can withstand losses of millions or even tens of millions of people. In fact, Russians have been known to walk away from towns on purpose and left them empty rather than submit to rulers they couldn’t stand. The reason the Russians, and all the other peoples of the then USSR, defeated Hitler was not due to love of Stalin or the Communist Party but rather because Hitler was a foreign invader. Even with nuclear weapons, Hitler could never have held Russia.
Scientifically, third party politics is not the median voter theorem. Anyone who pushes the notion that libertarianism must act as a subsidiary to “majority opinion” is either an ignoramus or a wrecker…
Always submit to majority opinion? No.
Not going against majority opinion for the apparent heck of it? Yes.
Vohra’s comments didn’t attract criticism because he was criticizing the US being too interventionist in foreign policy or even because he was making a general criticism of the military doing bad things. Plenty of people agree with those, including people in the military, and they’re consistent with the party platform. He caught flak because of his condemnations of anyone who would even enter the military. That’s a significantly less popular position, isn’t quite consistent with the platform (“We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression”), and doesn’t seem to really accomplish much of anything.
The funny thing is that members of the military actually seem to support libertarianism more than the general public (which makes sense, as they’re the ones who bear the brunt of military intervention), so he’s essentially going out of his way to attack people who are or would be quite receptive to the party platform.
There was zero chance of Hitler winning against the USSR, regardless of anything the US did or did not do. It had nothing to do with Stalin being in power, or not. What stopped Hitler was what stopped any Europeans who ever tried to invade Russia. I don’t believe Hitler would have held Britain either. Hitler invading the US is laughable.
A lot of factors change if Hitler ever got his hands on atomic bombs, which Germany was working on. If the war had gone on longer due to the US not entering it, they might have managed it.
Capturing the LP’s presidential nomination has more to do with who can get the most delegates to attend the convention than anything else.
“Always with the center against the right, never with the right against the center.”
Exactly.
—–
Which means that if the “libertarian libertarians” are going to defeat the “Shiny Badgers” in in 2020, they’re going to have to make common cause with the likes of Shane Trejo.
—–
Nope. Even assuming your taxonomy reflects the real world, Trotsky had it right on coalitions: “Always with the center against the right, never with the right against the center.”
So, dL, then MNR was in your mind a “crackpot” for citing Lao Tzu as the first L. I think MNR was correct in many ways, although that would not exclude the possibility that he was a “crackpot” (if one really wanted to use such a word about a brother) for other stances.
well, i’ll defer to your superior comedic abilities that tries to pull off military interventionism as a NAP exercise…
Crackpot… “original libertarianism” was not Roman republicanism. Laissez faire traces back to the French physiocrats who got it from the Chinese. The word libertarian itself was first coined by French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque while writing in New York circa 1860. Modern libertarianism itself as a political philosophy is rooted in the enlightenment and has a genealogy that begins w/ Thomas Paine in Paris.
ATBAFT – “Of course there were ways that Hitler could have defeated the USSR. Perhaps the paramount one was to treat the citizens of USSR as liberated human beings instead of conquered subjects that would ultimately engage in partisan war that tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops behind the front.”
I’ve had Ukrainians who were in WWII who told me much the same thing; that after Stalin, many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators; that only the Ukrainians in the Communist Party (the ‘partisans’) fought against them; and it’s only when the Germans began wholesale execution of Ukrainians in reprisal for partisan attacks that Ukrainian public opinion turned against Germany.
But that’s a counter-factual, which rests on a huge assumption: that Hitler could have been enough of a liberal (in the LVM sense) to treat non-Germans with respect, while at the same time being enough of an anti-liberal to invade Poland and Russia in the first place.
dl, please explain how your allegedly superior reading abilities lead you to the conclusion that non-interventionism and non-initiation of force are identical principles.
Hitler considered Slavs to be inferior, and in any case it was not his style to treat people as liberated human beings; after all he was a totalitarian who wanted complete control over everyone and everything. And the Russian people would have never put up with being subjected to rule by invaders from Europe.
As for the confederacy, yes, it was not going to win. And even if they somehow won militarily, just the non-enforcement of fugitive slave laws in the now unencumbered north would have ruined them financially as slaves would have fled plantations in large numbers. Furthermore, Europe was becoming increasingly less tolerant of chattel slavery, at least in “civilized” nations that purported to be Christian, so they would have been facing increasing boycotts as well as increasing competition in the market for cotton. And, they likely would have found themselves on the wrong end of US tariffs as a foreign importer. Chances they would have begging for readmission to the Union in less than a decade.
Damn, I would like to welcome John “I was for it before I was against it” Kerry to the forum…
In American foreign policy, a successful war is one that creates the next war.
is that oracle-like or merely middle-school-minimum-reading-comprehension-like?
I wasn’t aware that little old ladies from New England won the war of revolution through free enterprise.
Please post the report here, when you have it available.
I didn’t know about the “adequate defense caucus” but will ask Michael about it.
Actually, truth tends to have precedents. The original Society for Rational Individualism was worsened when it changed to Society for Individual Liberty. I became a life member of SIL, which merged with LI to become ISIL, now the name changed back to LI.
I maintain the original libertarianism can be traced back to the roman republic and their theory of natural justice. The original distortion occurred after the fall of Rome, when non-interventionism was substituted.
“There was zero chance of Hitler winning against the USSR, regardless of anything the US did or did not do. It had nothing to do with Stalin being in power, or not. What stopped Hitler was what stopped any Europeans who ever tried to invade Russia. ”
This sounds suspiciously like the “Lost Causers” of the Confederacy; that there was no way they could have defeated the manpower and manufacturing resources of the Union. [So let’s sacrifice 300,000 Southerners for a point of honor.] Of course there were ways that Hitler could have defeated the USSR. Perhaps the paramount one was to treat the citizens of USSR as liberated human beings instead of conquered subjects that would ultimately engage in partisan war that tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops behind the front.
The original was the “Adequate Defense Caucus” of the mid 1970s.
Stay tuned for how little old ladies from New England won the American Revolution using free enterprise. That story, and other similar stories will soon be available via acpvision.blogspot.com
The point of the exercise with founded the LP was eliminating centralized authority for individual, local action. That remains the goal for some of us.
The petition was not my idea and I haven’t signed it yet. To my knowledge, the petition was created outside the LDC. Though it was posted to our group, I did re-post it and sympathize with it’s complaints.
The problem I have with the petition, is that Vohra is actually one of the better persons on the LNC. At least, on topics other than the US military. And he has rare competence.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus is a direct descendant of the old American Defense Caucus, active in the LP during the Reagan era. Generally, we uphold the moral right and practical necessity of having an organized military. We supported the successful war on communism, and now the war on political Islam.
dl makes the assertion that he is like an oracle, and can say with certainty that those who disagree with non-interventionism and neo-pacifism are not libertarian. Perhaps dl would condescend to explain what he means by “libertarian”.
I don’t read Bjornsen’s comments. I accidentally noticed that he was again trying to respond to me, but my name was as far as I read. I have zero interest in having any sort of conversation with Bjornsen.
There was zero chance of Hitler winning against the USSR, regardless of anything the US did or did not do. It had nothing to do with Stalin being in power, or not. What stopped Hitler was what stopped any Europeans who ever tried to invade Russia. I don’t believe Hitler would have held Britain either. Hitler invading the US is laughable. Reading alternative histories based on implausible fantasies is not how I want to spend my time.
If the US had not declared war on Germany, Germans would not have attacked US ships. They were attacked only because the US was allied with the UK, and sending material aid to the UK, even if not every ship that was attacked was directly engaged in helping the UK.
“Which means that if the “libertarian libertarians” are going to defeat the “Shiny Badgers” in 2020, they’re going to have to make common cause with the likes of Shane Trejo.”
No thanks. I find the shiny badgers to be the lesser evil between the two.
Kevin S. Bjornson – “Even if my analysis were not correct from a factual viewpoint, the LP should not be taking a very unpopular interpretation of facts and distorted view of morality, pretending to speak for all libertarians. As vice-chair of the LP, Vohra should be aware his posts will be widely read and this creates a conflict of interest for him.
Would you say the same about Trejo? That, because he has a position in YAL (which he advertises in his column) that he has similar conflict of interest? That it can look like he’s speaking for YAL, and his columns show that that YAL is pretending to speak for everyone in the “liberty movement”?
The libertarian[sic] defense Caucus is pushing a butthurt petition to have Vohra removed.Obviously, you have no problem pretending to speak for people who you most certainly do not speak for. I mean, really, all you can manage so far is 90 butthurts? lol..that’s it?
TK – “These people are not the Libertarian Party’s friends. Ceteris paribus, everything they say should be disbelieved and all their advice should be ignored. Their mission is to hijack the party for their authoritarian purposes if they can and destroy it if they can’t.”
But other things are not always equal. For one thing, the “libertarian libertarians” in the LP, and the “libertarian libertarians” in YAL types, like Trejo, have a common enemy – The “Shiny Badgers” or “Republican Lites” who nominated the likes of Ed Clark, Bob Barr, and Gary Johnson. For another, the only way the “libertarian libertarians” have been able to nominate their preferred LP candidate, from Bergland to Badnarik, is to form a coalition against that common enemy.
Which means that if the “libertarian libertarians” are going to defeat the “Shiny Badgers” in 2020, they’re going to have to make common cause with the likes of Shane Trejo.
Paulie said:
“Hitler was far too busy with the USSR and the UK to do any damage to the US.”
[K] I see. So, that’s why he planned an “Amerika” bomber to attack NYC (eerily similar to 9/11) and started sinking US merchant ships supplying Britain (thus interfering with free trade). Germany also had a nuclear program and absent US intervention, would likely have had time to make nukes.
[P] “Germany declared war against the US in a perfunctory manner as part of its alliance with Japan,”
[K] Your ignorance is profound:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states
“Germany was under no obligation to do this under the terms of the Tripartite Pact, which promised help if Japan was attacked, but not if Japan was the aggressor.”
[P} …and the US declared war against Germany as part of its alliance with the UK,
[K] The US had no treaty or alliance requiring the US to declare war on Germany, if there were such a treaty the US would not have waited for Germany to declare war on the US.
[P] but without the Japanese attack on the US there would have never been a US entry into the war
[K] Perhaps, but that is impossible to know, as other events could have caused US entry into the war.
[P] Hitler still would have lost, and as Knapp said the Soviet Union would have come out of the war far less able to take over Eastern Europe.
[K] Without US support for Britain and entry into the war, likely Stalin would have conquered all of continental Europe, not just eastern Europe. Normandy and invasion of Italy created two extra fronts, causing Germany to split their forces.
concerning pre-Pearl Harbor: Perhaps the US and others should have continued to supply Japan with raw materials, but free trade does not mean compelled trade. In any event, the past cannot be changed, we can respond only in the present tense. Once Pearl Harbor happened, the US had to enter the war.
Even if my analysis were not correct from a factual viewpoint, the LP should not be taking a very unpopular interpretation of facts and distorted view of morality, pretending to speak for all libertarians. As vice-chair of the LP, Vohra should be aware his posts will be widely read and this creates a conflict of interest for him.
Perhaps I will check it out after catching up on this season’s “Homeland” on Showtime….
People who wish the U.S. should have stayed out of World War II owe it to themselves to read the best-seller 1992 novel by Robert Harris, “Fatherland”, which is an alternate history in which the U.S. did defeat Japan, but did not engage in Europe. Britain surrendered in 1944 because Hitler’s submarines were starving them into submission. The novel is set in 1964 and Hitler is still in power.
George Phillies – “No, the oil tankers sailing north and south along America’s coast line were not carrying arms to Britain. They were carrying gasoline and heating oil to American consumers.”
It’s unclear to whom are you replying, George. Not to me, I hope; since I never said that the tankers sailing along America’s coastline were carrying arms to Britain; nor does the fact that some American ships did not even travel to Britain prove that the U.S. was not supplying arms to Britain.
I hope you can clear that up.
Thomas L. Knapp
May 12, 2017 at 06:29
“The primary long-term effect of the US entering World War II was to hand eastern Europe over to Stalin and his successors for nearly half a century instead of leaving the Soviet Union as exhausted from defeating Hitler as Germany would have been from being defeated. FDR spent two years trying like hell to find a way to get us into that war and finally managed to bait Japan into giving him a casus belli.”
Without D-Day though, couldn’t it be argued that Stalin would be able to take all of occupied Europe, from Poland to France? I’m genuinely asking. I know that the Soviets suffered terribly in the war. Without American Lend-Lease or opening another front they’re likely to suffer even more. The question in my mind is if they’d be able to support puppeting most of Europe after a more brutal WW2.
Then of course there’s always the chance Germany wins. This is rather unlikely, but what if Stalin dies mid war and a power struggle erupts? Or hell, even an earlier invasion(without Germany needing to subdue Greece, I’ve heard it said they would have gone in earlier) or more mild winter might do it.
ww2 is probably my second most conflicted conflict. Ideally I’ve have been a Taft Republican at the time, and seeing the results I can’t think it as much of a victory. But I do worry the outcomes if we had never gotten involved might have been even worse.
(For reference, the other conflict I feel was justified was Korea. Just looking at the results today I can’t imagine a NK which controlled the entire peninsula. I can’t see a situation where that makes for a “better” world. Not only would it likely still be a brutal dictatorship, but there would be no K-pop!)
To be clear here, George, what exactly is your position on the following US wars/interventions(since the 20th century)? Which are the good ones(or the justifiable ones) and which are the bad ones, if any?
(i) Border War of 1910
(ii) Banana Wars 1898-1934
(iii) Occupation of Haiti. 1910-1934
(iv) WWI 1918-1919
(v) Russian Civil War 1918-1920
(vi) WW II 1941-1945
(vii) Korean War 1950-1953
(viii) Laotian Civil War 1950-1975
(ix) Lebanon 1958
(x) Cuba/Bay of Pigs 1961
(xi) Simba Rebellion 1964
(xii)Dominican Civil War 1965-1966
(xiii) Vietnam War 1965-1973
(xiiii) Communist insurgency in Thailand 1965-1983
(xv) Lebanon 1982-1984
(xvi) Invasion of Grenada 1983
(xvii) Libya Bombing 1986
(xviii) Tanker War 1987-1988
(xix) Invasion of Panama 1989-1990
(xx) Gulf War I ,1990-1991
(xxi) Somali Civil War Intervention 1992-1995
(xxii) Haitian Intervention 1994-1995
(xxiii) Bosnian War 1994-1995
(xxiv) Kosovo War 1998-1999
(xxv) Afghanistan 2001-present
(xxvi) Iraq War 2003-2011
(xxvii) Pakistan War 2004-present
(xxviii) Libyan Civil War 2011
(xxix) War on ISIL 2014-present
(xxx) War in Syria 2014-present
No, the oil tankers sailing north and south along America’s coast line were not carrying arms to Britain. They were carrying gasoline and heating oil to American consumers.
“General Smedley Butler was the most respected U. S. military figure for the first half of the 20th Century.”
He was respected. The most respected? Not even close.
If you don’t want your nose punched, you don’t stick it in to someone else’s fight. Those merchant ships were delivering arms and supplies to one belligerent in a war to which the US was not party, with the other belligerent being legally proscribed from doing business with US firms. Was there some other way in which you would expect them to be treated?
General Smedley Butler was the most respected U. S. military figure for the first half of the 20th Century.
In his book, “War is a Racket,” he begins with this.
Read the entire book online at this link:
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
“War Is A Racket
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people — not those who fight and pay and die — only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers? ” Go to link:
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
And why do we always make ‘war’ on nations with oil?
http://acpvision.blogspot.com/2017/05/time-line-healing-from-unjust-war.html
That was also the issue in Vietnam.
Congrats to a Libertarian who sees it.
“Hitler was far too busy with the USSR and the UK to do any damage to the US.” Baloney. I refer interested readers to Morison’s History of the united States Navy in World War II, in particular to losses of merchant ships.
To hell with Trejo and all his altreich buddies. And since when is a facebook note a “manifesto” much less some kind of official party statement?
I notice no one has bothered to consider the source of the article. If anyone doesn’t understand my terms “anti-Libertarian” and “libertarian libertarian”, one could do no better than to point them to Mr. Trejo.
Shane Trejo is an anti-Libertarian: meaning just that he opposes the Libertarian Party, and whenever he writes about it it’s to attack it or individuals in it, usually both. And his method of attack is “libertarian libertarian” approach: to claim that he is more libertarian than the Libertarian Party, and (in the extreme) that the Libertarian Party isn’t really libertarian at all.
A paradigm example of that is the article he links to, “Libertarian Party thinks Ron Paul is not a Libertarian,” which was a sustained attack on Nicholas Sarwark (his usual target now that he doesn’t have Johnson and Weld to kick around anymore) and by implication the Libertarian Party. Notice too how he tries to third-party or objectify his personal opinion of Sarwark by noting that Sarwark “has come under fire”, while not noting that that “fire” has been coming from him.
The same applies to this article. That’s clear from the very beginning of the article – “Libertarian Party vice chair Arvin Vohra released a divisive manifesto…” That not only does not make it clear whether this manifesto is an LP position paper, or just Vohra writing something of his own; Trejo’s description of the ‘manifesto’ is designed to be unclear at that point.
Notice how Trejo claims there is “overwhelming opposition” by libertarians “but not every libertarian” to Vohra’s manifesto (of which he quotes only one sentence), even though he can quotes only two comments in opposition.
Notice how, of those two comments he does quote, one misstates those views (“I don’t think anyone is innately evil for serving in the military”), while the other implies that Vohra is speaking for the party (“your comments remind me why the LP will never be a relevant party”).
Notice how he tries to discredit Vohra’s ‘manifesto’ by pointing out that a “streaker” agreed with them, and smuggles in his own value judgement (that the “manifesto” was “offensive”) by calling the “streaker’s” comment “even more offensive.”
Finally, note how Trejo’s conclusion – that the “manifesto” may “jeopardize Vohra’s future in a leadership role within the Libertarian Party” – is pure speculation, reflecting nothing more than his belief that it *should* jeopardize Vohra’s future; and would, if the LP were really libertarian like him.
For the record, I’ve done a bit of research on the theories surrounding Pearl Harbor.
My conclusion is that while FDR was definitely hoping to get a casus belli from Japan, he did not in fact know in advance the time and place that the excuse would come. The encrypted message specifying the site (Pearl Harbor) and the time of the attack was allegedly still on someone’s desk awaiting decryption when the attack happened. From our point of view here was a reasonable chance that the Japanese would move directly on the Philippines, or even that they would stage some smaller confrontation at e.g. Wake Island and see if they could get the US to back down.
On the other hand, it probably wasn’t coincidence that much of the US fleet wasn’t at Pearl Harbor that morning. It was a POSSIBLE attack site and it made good military sense to keep some of the fleet out and about instead of sitting there vulnerable.
But the fact remains that FDR gave Japan a choice — give up their military plans for a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” for lack of steel, oil and gas to take it, or fight the US in addition to the Chinese and European colonial forces. He knew they would choose the latter. The US entered World War II because FDR wanted the US to enter World War II and acted to make that happen.
George Phillies – “Readers may recall that to the great surprise of the Japanese, the United States, and his own armed services commanders, who had not been warned in advance, Hitler declared war on the United States and started attacking us.”
Nothing to do with the OP, of course, but I’ve got to say it’s a good observation. I do recall always being surprised by that. It does look like Hitler’s biggest mistake; the one decision of his that played the biggest role in his losing WWII.
Who knows what was up with that? Maybe Hitler thought that, if he declared war on the U.S., Japan would declare war on the USSR. Maybe he figured that, because the US was already arming the UK and USSR, he needed some justification for attacking US ships. A conspiracy theorist like Andy might even say that it was all rigged: Hitler was ordered to lose the war by the real overlords, so that’s what he did.
Hitler’s not talking, of course, so we can only speculate; but it is surprising.
Hitler was far too busy with the USSR and the UK to do any damage to the US. Germany declared war against the US in a perfunctory manner as part of its alliance with Japan, and the US declared war against Germany as part of its alliance with the UK, but without the Japanese attack on the US there would have never been a US entry into the war or a German war against the US, Hitler still would have lost, and as Knapp said the Soviet Union would have come out of the war far less able to take over Eastern Europe. Hitler was defeated primarily by the Russian winter, same as Napoleon, and additionally proved incapable of taking Britain. It’s fantasy to believe he could have defeated both the UK and USSR, with or without US involvement.
Wikipedia:
On 11 December 1941, Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany declared war against the United States, the same day that the United States declared war on Germany and Italy
……………
Prime Minister Winston Churchill hastened to Washington shortly after Pearl Harbor for the Arcadia Conference to ensure that the Americans didn’t have second thoughts about Europe First. The two countries reaffirmed that, “notwithstanding the entry of Japan into the War, our view remains that Germany is still the prime enemy. And her defeat is the key to victory. Once Germany is defeated the collapse of Italy and the defeat of Japan must follow.”
……………..
At the December 1941 Arcadia Conference between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Washington, shortly after the United States entered the War, the decision for the “Europe First” strategy was affirmed. However, U.S. statistics show that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.
Readers may recall that to the great surprise of the Japanese, the United States, and his own armed services commanders, who had not been warned in advance, Hitler declared war on the United States and started attacking us.
yeah, the “pressure” appears to be 75 butthurt conservatives who have signed an online petition demanding the LP remove Vohra from vice-chair.
This is one of the best speeches you will ever hear on the true nature of the military and police.
Mark Passio – The Cult Of Ultimate Evil – Order-Followers & The Destruction Of The Sacred Feminine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBNGxLiAs
Lots of mainstream historians recognize that FDR baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, and that his administration knew that the attack was coming, and they that purposely did not let the military forces who were stationed there know that the attack was coming, because they wanted to use public outrage from this attack to draw the country into World War II. They even made sure that all of the aircraft carriers and other newer ships that they did not want to get destroyed were out on maneuvers when the attack took place, so that the only ships that got destroyed were ones that the US Navy did not really want anymore anyway.
World War II may seem like it was a “good war” for the USA to have participated, but the truth of the matter is that World War II would not have happened if not for the aftermath of World War I, and US involvement in World War I was even more unnecessary than was US involvement in World War II. If the US had stayed out of World War I, it likely would have ended in a stalemate, and Germany would not have been unfairly forced to pay a ridiculous amount of money in reparations (Germany did not even start World War I) under the Treaty of Versailles, which ended up destroying the German economy, which is what led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party.
The only war this country has been in that I could have really gotten behind was the American Revolution.
Tony,
The question is somewhat contextless.
Q: Why did Pearl Harbor happen?
A: On July 24, 1941, Vichy France ceded French bases in Indochina to Japan for their use.
In response, FDR froze Japanese assets in the US two days later, and on August 1st placed an embargo on US sales of oil and gasoline to Japan. Japan got 80% of its oil and gasoline from the US, so this resulted in:
1) An oil crisis in Japan which brought down the government and put War Minister Hideki Tojo in charge; followed by
2) Tojo’s decision to make up for the lost gas and oil by seizing said resources in the Indochina area; a decision which required neutralizing a large naval force on the southward advance’s flank.
Presumably a Libertarian Party would have opposed FDR doing everything in his power to get Japan to attack the US, and would have supported a limited punitive response and a reasonable defense buildup if FDR was successful in provoking said attack.
TK, what would the libertarian response to Pearl Harbor have been?
Honest curiosity, no attack here.
I’ve always found it backwards that returning Vietnam vets were derided and called awful things even spat upon and most were draftees. Today with the all volunteer military it’s “thank you for your service”. I can’t say that I share Mr. Vohra’s views 100% and I also agree that it’s the POLICY that sends our forces incorrectly into harms way that needs to be attacked not the soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines that do the heavy lifting. Still if stirring the pot this way attracts enough attention to begin a serious discussion it has merit. BTW, I am a 33 year Navy retiree 1970-2003.
Quoth Darcy:
“one has to wonder whether Vohra’s ideal of a Libertarian Party in the early 1940s would have opposed U.S. entry into World War II.”
Any Libertarian Party that was actually libertarian would have opposed US entry into World War II.
Too bad Norman Thomas didn’t follow the example of Rosa Luxemburg.
Author obviously meaning Trejo, not Vohra or Pyeatt.
Bjornsen
“this will go viral.”
It already exhibits the symptoms of an author afflicted with the rabies virus. I was going to say late stage syphillis picked up on an R & R stop but that’s bacterial.
I really, really hate playing the “as a veteran” card, but in this case it seems applicable.
As a veteran — US Marine Corps, infantry, non-commissioned officer, Desert Storm, honorably discharged — I say that Mr. Vohra is 100%, completely and without question, right in the thrust of his comments.
I’ve run into Mr. Trejo before — he hangs out with the anti-libertarian nationalist types on Facebook, and he’s obviously learned their tactics (hell, maybe he TAUGHT them their tactics) vis a vis messaging. The “pressure is building on Vohra to resign his post” horseapples isn’t anything based in reality, it’s a “fake it ’til you make it” attempt to create such pressure. Presumably this little gem is an offshoot of the similar ongoing nationalist attacks on LNC chair Nick Sarwark by e.g. Augustus Invictus.
These people are not the Libertarian Party’s friends. Ceteris paribus, everything they say should be disbelieved and all their advice should be ignored. Their mission is to hijack the party for their authoritarian purposes if they can and destroy it if they can’t.
The primary long-term effect of the US entering World War II was to hand eastern Europe over to Stalin and his successors for nearly half a century instead of leaving the Soviet Union as exhausted from defeating Hitler as Germany would have been from being defeated. FDR spent two years trying like hell to find a way to get us into that war and finally managed to bait Japan into giving him a casus belli. Claire Booth Luce was not ENTIRELY correct when she said that he “lied us into a war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it” — it wasn’t a problem of political courage on his part, but rather reluctance on the part of the American public — but she wasn’t TOO far off the mark.
“Of course this means, Vohra opposes US fighting the Axis powers in WWII. I supposed after Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on the US, the US was supposed to let Japan take Hawaii and Hitler take Europe. Then hope for the best, as formerly free nations succumb to aggression, then we take a heroic last stand in Fortress America. Right.” — Kevin S Bjornson
If this is true and that’s what Vohra actually said, one has to wonder whether Vohra’s ideal of a Libertarian Party in the early 1940s would have opposed U.S. entry into World War II.
If so, that’s pretty damn disturbing. Even Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party — the former of whom headed the now long-forgotten “Keep America Out of War Committee” and was a featured speaker along with famed aviator Charles Lindbergh at several isolationist America First rallies, including a massive event at New York’s Madison Square Garden — agreed to “critical support” of the Allied effort to defeat the ominous threat of worldwide fascism in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor.
Somebody needs to put a leash on Vohra before he totally embarrasses the Libertarian Party.
Thanks for posting this, this will go viral.
Vohra actually said that the last just war the US fought, was the War of 1812. Then somebody objected to US participation in that war, and he agreed.
Of course this means, Vohra opposes US fighting the Axis powers in WWII. I supposed after Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on the US, the US was supposed to let Japan take Hawaii and Hitler take Europe. Then hope for the best, as formerly free nations succumb to aggression, then we take a heroic last stand in Fortress America. Right.
Was he always this daft, and just hid it? He has said and done so many good things, now he has gone over the top.
The comment was merely a rationalization of the existing status quo.
Besides the fact that the United States has never practiced a limited defensive military, you will have hard time using the works of Bastiat to defend “standing armies.”
Other than the war of 1812, which was a British response against American aggression in Canada, the United States has never been externally invaded. And all that invasion did was sack DC. Personally, I would consider that type of invasion today a liberation.
Scientifically, third party politics is not the median voter theorem. Anyone who pushes the notion that libertarianism must act as a subsidiary to “majority opinion” is either an ignoramus or a wrecker…
“Pressure is building on Vohra to resign his post, but not every libertarian is up in arms over his comments.’
Pressure from who? This is idiotic.
While I agree with some of the ideas behind his statements, I think that he’s doing a pretty bad job of expressing them. I’m in general agreement with the following comment on the Facebook post:
As a veteran I expected to be more offended by these statements. I was not. I find them lacking somewhat and I find them as counter to any kind of libertarian outreach, but I am not offended.
I too feel like I was misused in my time in Afghanistan, especially since the US military was aware as early as 2006 (most likely earlier) that Bin Laden was operating out of Pakistan. And anyone who thinks Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 is smoking some Gary Johnson level stuff.
However, I would challenge the idea that the American military and all who serve in it are dupes that are unworthy of praise. I would challenge it not only because it is a horrible stance to take as far as public relations for the party is concerned. Attacking policy decisions instead of those who serve is much more productive and will accomplish more in the long run. When you speak out against veterans you do nothing but further marginalize the party which should be counter to your goals as a delegate.
As a Bastiat, limited- government libertarian, I believe in a limited defensive military. That is more in line with the current party platform than your diatribe and much more palatable to the American public. I believe that we need good men and women in uniform to defend our nation from its enemies.
Someone has to do the job. The focus should be, NOT on attacking the veterans (as someone who wants to be a spokesman for the party) but on changing our dangerous foreign policy.
You are angry and rightfully so, but when you go off on a rant like this, you accomplish nothing with any meaning or substance.
You don’t reach anyone except the small percentage of anarcho-capitalist libertarians that already share your world view. And they can’t change anything by themselves. The goal is to spread the ideas of freedom through the rest of the 270 million plus people who are out there presently voting for Clintons and Trumps.
You clearly fail to understand the goal of the party and its means for advancing freedom.
Sadly, this puts you in perfect match with most of what I have seen from the party’s leadership in the past.
The Libertarian Party will continue to be a joke with garbage like this as its message.
Pressure from whom? The Trump-suckers? lol.. The only arm a libertarian would raise would be to high-five…
Good for Arvin for speaking the truth about our military! These kids think that they’ll have automatic respect when they join, and I think many of them actually think they will be “keeping us safe”. The fact that so many returning veterans come home so traumatized tells me they’re seeing and living something very, very wrong during their time of service. We need to start using appropriate terms such as “murderer” and “murder”. What if they gave a war, and no one shows up to fight it? That would be fabulous, in my book.