From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:32:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183818.27963@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

|>In article <C17vyu.B9n@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

|>}O.K. then since the "Libertarians" have asked for a quiz perhaps they could
|>}defend US involvement in third world regimes which oppress human rights. What
|>is
|>}the "Libertarian" position on the air strikes in Iraq? Specificaly is the UN
|>}entitled to determine the borders of countries and is the movement of the
|>}Kewaiti border 1/2 Km into former Iraqui territory valid in terms of
|>property
|>}rights? If the answer is yes is it nevertheless a good idea to do something
|>}which may be used as casum belli in the future?
|>}
|>
|>From the 1992 LP Platform:  
|>
|>"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and
|>the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and
|>property of the American people on American soil.  Provision of such
|>defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere."
|>
|>Further, "We support the withdrawal of the United States government from,
|>and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations.  We oppose the
|>U.S. government participation in any world or international government.  We
|>oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated."

And just how does the Libertarian party jusatify the existence of nations under
its principles in the first place? Since they are opposed to governments it
would seem that a world organisation which constrains the sovereignty of
individual nations would be a primary goal of a real Libertarian.

Unfortunately the real goal pops up instead. The Libertarian party is merely a
group of isolationists who want to abdicate from international responsibility
just as they do in all other fields.

Although I am no great fan of NATO, particularly because it spent taxpayers
money for overtly partisan political purposes, it is undeniable that it played a
major role in maintaining world peace. Because the West was united against
Russia it was clear that a peacemeal attack such as Hitler employed would not
have worked.

I fail to see any validity in a "Libertarianism" that could stand idly by and
allow Hitler to commit genocide in Europe. Would Libertarians support an embargo
against a country if its leaders were commiting mass murder?

The propblem with the US libertarian party is that they have no interest in
anyone else's liberty but their own, self-interest clothed in self-righteous
altruism. A transparent creation at the best of times.


|>}Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens
|>within
|>}its borders? Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
|>}countries? If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible for
|>the
|>}government to tap a phone?
|>}
|>}
|>The Libertarian Party supports and defends the fourth amendment to the US
|>Constitution which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and
|>seizures.
|>
|>To repeat what I said earlier, the application of liberty far exceeds the
|>issue of taxes.

If there is proof that a person is an extorsionist, demanding money with menaces
etc would it be justified to tap his phone with the objective of capturing his
accomplices?

The problem here is that if the tap is denied then the rights of the victims of
the extorsion are going to be infringed, does the infringement of the criminals
rights override the infringement of his victims rights?

The big problem with Liberty is that some liberties are genuinely contradictory.
Simply demanding every individual right is not enough. It is necessary to
distinguish the cases where there is a genuine collective need to infringe
individual rights and where a claim is merely being made for expediency.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they contribute nothing to the
debate. Faced with a problem they do not offer a solution but instead attack the
circumstances of the question. It is far more valuable in the persuit of
individual liberties to demonstrate practical mechanisms by which the individual
can be protected from abuse by authority than to merely attack the basis of the
authority. The latter position is merely anarchy, a theory which is attractive
in its simplicity but disastrous in its application.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker