From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:06:03 EST
Organization: ACME Products

In article <C1BtJ4.8uJ@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.164519.23419@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
> rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
> |>In article <C19KMK.K9C@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
> |>}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?
> |>}
> |>
> |>But Libertarianism does not stand idly by.  We seek repeal of current laws
> |>restricting individuals in their attempt "to aid overseas organizations
> |>fighting to overthrow or change governments."  This includes "voluntary
> |>cooperation with any economic boycott."  Lines quoted are from the 1992 LP
> |>Platform.
> 
> You have answered my point, however what you propose would consitute an act of
> war. Supply of arms to beligerents is grounds for counterattack. This was
> precisely the ground chosen by the NAZIs in WWII against the US. In fact this

	So you agree that it would not constitute "sitting idly by"?

> was justified to the extent that the US was acting to aid the UK but since the
> NAZIs were the original agressors over Poland and Checz, the point is moot.

	Since it's private citizens, and not the government, your point (if
there is one) is moot.

> More recently the US used supply of weapons to aid opposition forces fighting
> against a murderous government as causum belli in Nicaragua.

	Yep.  Don't think that won too many supporters in either the Lib party
or among socialists.
	But then again there are always mutual defense treaties.

> The Libertarian party should reasearch a bit more international law before
> writting their manifesto.

	Wrong party.  Libs write platforms.

...
> |>A tap may be placed but only through due process.  From the Fourth
> |>Amendment, "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
> |>by Oath or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be
> |>searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  In other words, law
> |>enforcement agencies must bring enough evidence before a judge for a
> |>warrant for the tap to be legal.  This point was addressed previously by
> |>June Genis in an earlier post.
> 
> But this is no real position at all, merely an affirmation of the status quo.

	Not at all.  Upone evidence that a person is attempting to deny
another's rights, the government may investigate to determine the veracity of
those charges.

> There is no analysis as to the correct balance between the liberties of the
> individual and those which must be surrendered in the interests of society as a
> whole.

	Criminals (ie, those who attempt to deny other's their rights) are in a
position where they have voided their implicit guarantee of rights, as it
should be.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70237 ca.politics:10709