Comments on: Do I Need an (Ideological) Affirmation?

By: Consevadores & Liberais (I) « O Intermitente (R)

Consevadores & Liberais (I) « O Intermitente (R) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:47:29 +0000

[...] GOP Tent” de Sebastian Mallaby “Arnold Kling’s Principles” de Tyler Cowen “Do I Need an (Ideological) Affirmation?” de Steve Postrel “Why Be a Conservative Libertarian?” de Arnold Kling “O Futuro [...]

By: TomGrey

TomGrey — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:58:34 +0000

Sorry, if war is a last resort, it will never be used — surrender and death would be tried first.

In the case of 9/11, acceptance of death without justice.

Justice requires force, violence, killing, war.
(Is one year late too late?)

By: O Insurgente » Blog Archive » Libertários e conservadores

O Insurgente » Blog Archive » Libertários e conservadores — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:31:16 +0000

[...] GOP Tent” (Sebastian Mallaby); “Arnold Kling’s Principles” de Tyler Cowen; “Do I Need an (Ideological) Affirmation?” (Steve Postrel); “Why Be a Conservative Libertarian?” (Arnold Kling); “O Futuro [...]

By: Clay Stiles

Clay Stiles — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:12:03 +0000

It is with much sadness that I contemplate these ideas. Our government today would be unrecognizable to the statesmen who created our Constitution. Why cannot it be our roadmap for libertarian principles? The answer: because our Congress, our Presidents and our Supreme Court have bastardized it to this point. The ideas set forth in it constitute the basis of Libertarian philosophy.
As an example, the right of women to vote. By amendment, that was changed. Women have had the effect on our culture of making security more important than freedom. In every instance - as has been pointed out by Ann Coulter and Neale Boortz, the women’s vote has resulted in more government and less freedom. We are a feminized culture at this point. i am not advocating a repeal of that amendment as I know the practicalities of that idea. The point that I am making is that without statesmen occupying the 3 branches of our government we are doomed to go the way of the other great domocracies/republics of past ages. A statesman is defined as a person who puts the interests of the nation, as a whole, first instead of self and partisan selfish ends.

By: libertreee

libertreee — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:18:58 +0000

I think Mr Postrel is too full of himself regarding his foreign policy proscription. If not the world’s policeman, he sets the US up as judge and jury of other nations. By his reckoning, the US has the right to regime change in most of the world.

But, at least I can take heart in that by his reckoning, the US has the right to invade Israel. Israel is full of threats to her neighbors, and has not restrained her agents from assassinations whenever the whim occurs…

I am waiting for the neocon American Enterprise Institute to issue the fatwah any day now…

By: Mark Terribile

Mark Terribile — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:48:47 +0000

–OOPS– continued from above.

I forgot that this is HTML, and that angle brackets are Magic. The essay is Lee Harris’s _Our World-Historical Gamble_ and the book is Philip Bobbitt’s massive _The Shield of Achilles_. I consider them both essential reading for this part of the debate.

By: Mark Terribile

Mark Terribile — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:43:35 +0000

The last point on making war is more subtle than it seems. Question 1: What constitutes the circumstances of last resort? Do you wait until the barbarians are at the gate? Question 2: What about the indirect approach? On one theory (which is it is probably not productive to debate here) our involvement in Iraq is an attack upon something that the terrorists and their sponsors cannot afford to lose: part of the Arab world which, if it becomes a democracy, will be a greater threat to them than all the world’s cruise missles together. Cruise missiles, on this theory, threaten a state. A working democracy threatens ideas, and it is ideas and emotion that are the terrorist’s great weapon. Thus (on this theory) we threaten their “center of gravity” and force them to fight against soldiers instead of bombing civilians. Whether you agree with this application or not, it’s a valid issue. Question 3: What about support for our allies, and for states that are merely friendly toward us? Maurice Bishop in Grenada merely talked with us and his Marxist backers took over his country. We kicked them out, because (I think) if someone must put himself in jeopardy just to talk to us, he won’t talk to us.

It’s easy to say that intelligent, responsible statecraft covers this, but the idealogues who star in the mass media circus condemn such things and so do the pupils they reeducate daily. There must be a place for statecraft, and principles to guide it. Such principles must be fundamental enough to cover both the classic arena of statecraft and the new realm of “non-state actors,” be they Hizbollah or Greenpeace, and clear enough that their demands can be understood by someone who has time to read an occasional book.

National sovereignty is ripe to be revisited by history, either by thoughtful reflection or random, costly, painful evolution. Lee Harris’s essay >Our World-Historical GambleThe Shield of Achilles