Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:
Linda Graff writes “As my son prepares for officer training this year, I feel torn: Can I stand in the middle of the street? I want to support the troops. I support my son. I did not support the invasion of Iraq and do not believe we will ‘win’ in Afghanistan. Is there now a possibility that he could be sent to Libya? What I learned from my father and several presidents was a healthy disbelief in the idea that our government will do what is right. I would like to trust the generals and the president to know what is best for our nation and national security, but I am afraid that too many young people have died in vain. Maybe I am the coward” (“My father the soldier, my son the soldier,” March 19).
Ms. Graff is no coward. She’s wise. And the wisest part of her understands what was so well explained by H.L. Mencken:
“It seems to be difficult if not impossible for human beings to avoid thinking of government as mystical entity with a nature and a history all its own. It constitutes for them a creature somehow interposed between themselves and the great flow of cosmic events, and they look to it to think for them and to protect them. In democratic countries it is theoretically their agent, but there seems to be a strong tendency to convert the presumably free citizen into its agent, or at all events, its client. This exalted view of its scope, character, powers and autonomy is fundamentally false. A government at bottom is nothing more than a group of men, and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men…. Yet these nonentities, by the intellectual laziness of men in general, have come to a degree of puissance in the world that is unchallenged by that of any other group. Their fiats, however preposterous, are generally obeyed as a matter of duty, they are assumed to have a kind of wisdom that is superior to ordinary wisdom, and the lives of multitudes are willingly sacrificed in their interest.”*
Indeed and sadly so.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux* H.L.Mencken, Minority Report (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 [1956]), pp. 56-57.
Share
{ 103 comments }
excellent write up.
Mencken rules. Timeless words that really get to the point.
Ah,Don. There you go again with your parodies and lack of nuance.
Think of all the possibilities if WE were in control of all that power! We’re smart and we seek to exert government power judiciously – ONLY where it produces positive results. All we have to do is figure out how to do this and we’re wise enough to do that.
Brabinger? Saddle up my unicornI
Life WOULD be so much easier!
No.
First of all, the Afghanistan War was required; how we proceed is controversial. The Iraq War was overwhelmingly the correct act and ought to have been laughed in the late 90s. That Hussein led the world to believe he had WMD but turned out not to have WMDs in 2003 just made the invasion perfectly timed. The invasion was justified and yet relatively easy. Approximately the same number of soldiers have died in the Carter Administration each year as have died during the years we have been at war since the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, the prudence of the invasion is debatable.
Where government is so small as in the USA (purposely and hopefully it remains so) and where we are free to leave, government a convenient delegatee of menial labor 90% of us would rather not do. We manage government casually to our detriment. But it does not control us any more than any employee controls their employer, which is to some degree depending on the reliance that employer has on the employee. The closest we came to the vision here described was when FDR was “president-for-life” as he was. And we revised our constitution upon reflection. It’s only those government actions with which one acutely disagrees that causes one to condescend to the government. The USA works well.
Mencken is the all time erudite complainer.
But it does not control us any more than any employee controls their employer…
None of my employees have ever held a gun (the IRS) to my head and borrowed money on my behalf without my permission or dictated how I run my business. And I can fire them.
The people gave the government permission to do all those things. You are not the dictator here, we are sovereign. Of course you Methinks 1776 are not the boss. But you can fire the USA … leave and hire another government.
You live in some fantasy world.
Who is this “the people”? I hate to crack your world of delusion, but d you have any clue how difficult it is to give up U.S. citizenship? Have you any clue that it is the United States government that decides whether it will allow you to give up citizenship? Until it allows you to renounce, the U.S. government considers you its property.
No I don’t. But it’s not that hard. Again however it is it’s because our democracy wants it to be so and is likely for a good reason. Would you read my response to Kyle8 below?
I think a study of world history and other governments and societies would make you realize that here and now in the USA is beyond quantification times better than in the past or elsewhere. Libertarianism has it’s limits. In any case, ours is the most libertarian government, right? I suppose The Netherlands is in some ways, but they tax a lot more, too.
The Netherlands?
Do you realize that no other country taxes its citizens anywhere they live in the world? I can escape French, Dutch, German, English, Greek, etc. taxation simply by living abroad for six months plus a day. The only way to escape the long arm of Uncle Sam is for Uncle Sam to give you permission to leave and stay in exile – you will end up on a blacklist for entry visas if you renounce. Of course, if you are successful in renouncing your citizenship, Uncle Sam helps himself to a chunk of your worldwide assets as a condition of letting you go. Try opening a bank account in Switzerland with less than a couple of million bucks. Uncle Sam forces them to disclose every damn thing about your account to Big Brother (US). The disclosure requirements are so monstrous that no foreign bank will even look at you unless you are very wealthy.
Blah blah blah…best country in the world and all that. Would you ignore the horror of slavery because your slavemaster beat you less often than other slave masters? I’m not equivocating, I’m just using a strong example to make my point.
Gee, Methinks renouncing citizenship from the U.S.A. may be a small price to pay if it’s going to become a full-blown Communist state. It’s like a ex-German Jew who complained about having to leave Germany only to discover the horrors that would have been his fate had he stayed and realising how lucky he was thereafter. May the U.S.A. is a dead duck and it’s better to move to China or Sinapore before you can’t leave whatsoever and government can seize 100% of your assets because it can.
Gee, if a person isn’t a “wage slave” because he can leave then a person isn’t a “tax slave” because he can emigrate. Boo hoo.
You live in a fools paradise. Governments, OUR government, can and HAS done all of the following (some quite recently).
Conscription, incarceration, slavery, internment, confiscation, wire taps, torture, discrimination, fines, capital punishment, invasions, bombings, assassinations, and taxation.
We need government, we need it to do pretty much just a few things, most important to protect us from aggression,. But government is like a wildfire, or nuclear fusion., It is a dangerous servant who is always ready to turn on you and destroy you.
The last paragraph is correct, but the USA is the best at avoiding that effect. Or is one better? I really like Switzerland’s form of government and I might like it better than ours, but I like the citizens of the USA so very much, especially that 2% who defend us, are really dedicated to living a noble life, and as is typically so, both.
Well, our democracy has done that through our government. Again, you seem to find the government tyrannical when it does not obey you or when it does unjust acts or has made mistakes in the past or is marginally flawed or corrupt, as one must expect. And, I’m for conscription on occasion, think incarceration is excellent, wire taps, fines, capital punishment, invasions – all fine – taxation excellent, and assasinations. The rest tends to be in the past, not done by our people in the 20th and 21st century or our government.
I really wish I’d read this crap before I posted a response to you above.
Nevermind.
If nuclear fusion was like wildfire then we’d have such power station online already.
“First of all, the Afghanistan War was required;”
Okay I can go with the “possibility” that the Afghan war was required; but, I’d dearly love to have you write the explanation for me.
“The Iraq War was overwhelmingly the correct act
No, what was the overwhelmingly correct act would have been for the female diplomat from the daddy Bush administration (that went to Iraq prior to Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, and told Saddam that “the USA has no interest in that area”, which he took as a green light for his ambitions) to have bluntly told Saddam that the USA would brook no Iraqi expansion of territory or power. Screwed up diplomacy means screwed up relations. The whole muddled screwed up mess of Iraq rests firmly upon daddy Bush’s shoulders.
“Where government is so small as in the USA”
Nancy Pelosi would say, “Are you shitting me? Are you shitting me?” The USA government small? Ahhhhhhhhh ha Bwa ha ha ha! What freaking cave do you live in?
“But it does not control us any more than any employee controls their employer,”
Dude, all in all your comment was really scatter brained, so rote reactionary government indoctrinated, and quite disjointed to boot. You, good sir, are so enculturated to obey, believe, accept, and yes even to worship that government you extol so vigorously, and you are totally blind to that fact.
Government is one of those things in life which inspired the mechanical fan, government sucks on one side and blows on the other, and there just ain’t no better summary of government than that, yes even the USA government……well especially the USA government because it makes the pretense of being of the people, for the people, and by the people…….no greater lie exists today than that concept.
That might be an apt criticism in 1990 although I’m not aware Bush I has the power to OK an invasion – the details are important; but Hussein was a problem and his Baathist Party are modeled on and duplicative of the Nazi Party.
Way bigger and too big; but the government is about 28% now (about). European governments are 45-ish%. The USA is typically 18-25% in the modern era.
I like our government; you just think government by the people means what you think we should do. Just from the “sound” of your post, I disagree with you about policy. You think I’m deluded because it’s not possible we both are right in our way generally, right for ourselves, or … that you are wrong and less informed than me.
We’re better off now than 15,000 years ago; it’s fun here in the USA.
“that you are wrong and less informed than me.”
Nope you condemn yourself by talking bullshit.
Fun, yes sir, that’s what it is all about to the ignorant.
Okay, you just prove that being disingenuous is a mind set that the right shares with the left.
You ignored this:
“First of all, the Afghanistan War was required;”
Okay I can go with the “possibility” that the Afghan war was required; but, I’d dearly love to have you write the explanation for me.
From your superior stand point surely such an explanation is easy for you, put it to print.
“That might be an apt criticism in 1990 although I’m not aware Bush I has the power to OK an invasion”
No, it was an apt criticism when I made it because you brought the subject up and in your blind unquestioning state were ignorant of the circumstance I pointed out to you. And, your disingenuousness shows because no one ever said daddy Bush ordered the invasion as a unilateral act, he used his muscle to get the U.N.Security Council to authorize it and drug in minor players to give it the blanket look of a coalition. For the real bright student you claim to be, you sure are ignorant of facts.
“Way bigger and too big; but the government is about 28% now (about). European governments are 45-ish%. The USA is typically 18-25% in the modern era.”
For the real bright guy you say you are, your brain isn’t working too well, and your attempt at disingenuous deflection of the debate shows. The size of governments in Europe is irrelevant to the size of ours. What is relevant is the size of government measured against the benchmark of personal freedom. The corporate government THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a vast bloated run-amok monster that crushed individual freedom long ago. Fool, you do not cooperate, you obey. Only you don’t have the brains or balls to recognize and admit it. Remind yourself of this debate as you voluntarily mail your 1040 in.
My mind is slipping, I had meant to make an additional point but forgot it.
“Government is one of those things in life which inspired the mechanical fan, government sucks on one side and blows on the other, and there just ain’t no better summary of government than that, yes even the USA government”
What you seem incapable of recognizing is that statement tells you that government is simply a tool, as a fan is a tool, it has a purpose but only a really stupid people worship tools. That the government sucks on one side and blows on the other does not mean it has no use; it says for you to remember that for the fan to get pleasant air to blow on you to cool you, it must take air from the other side and that air is created by magic…..it is taken.
Funny how that resembles redistribution in the socialist system, eh?
Drat!
“and that air is //not// created by magic…..it is taken.”
You cannot be wrong or misinformed or less informed than me? Wow. You are a deluded egomaniac.
It’s just your opinion that very limited government is the best. That is why we vote. We determine how free we want to be and like the other best settlements, it leaves no one with all they want. But if what you think is so inviolably correct, why can’t you or anyone, e.g., Ron Paul, convince the electorate?
What if government is so persistent and destructive because it is a small group of peoples means to get what they want. War is a choice we, or in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, a few people make for us. There was no stopping it once the Bush Administration got the ball rolling. It was the responisbility of Afghanistan to bring Al queda to justice and it was the people of Iraqs responsibility to bring Hussein to justice. They couldn’t in either case because their governments controlled them just like the United States Government controls you!
Response to all who wrote comments. Having to obey laws you don’t like is not slavery. The USA is based on the notion that WE rule OURSELVES. We don’t have a king. That’s all you are going to get short of beginning your own republic somwhere and fighting for your independence. But we disagree and we settle our disagreements at the ballot box.
The USA government does not control it’s citizens. No way. You can leave practically whatever Methinks1776 writes. And those exit rules are democratic ones. And the USA military is one reason you had that wealth whether you earned or inherited it.
Well, I’m grateful to be here and like the USA government. To each their own. You seem obnoxious, each of you, so probably deserve your misery and would be miserable anywhere. It’s hard but satisfying and well-paid work along with a lot fun where I am and it would not be that way anywhere else. Ta now; DVR has some good shows on before I turn in for the night.
To say again, I think the USA can tax you on the way out.
But the point of this post is this multi-part survey of state power in The Economist. Just what we’re discussing:
http://www.economist.com/node/18359896
It’s like I say, 18-25% is great as long as it’s efficient. There things I like like taxing the rich more than the middle income to pay for educating the poor and middle income. All sorts of things are good government activites and I vote for them happily; being a good citizen and obeying even when I don’t get what I want.
I wrote laughed; I mean launched.
Is there a better idea n how to organize a society with out a government. Or with a government of, by and for the people.
The argument against government is kinda like arguing against how unfair it is that we have to ever feel pain. If only we didn’t have pain things would be so much better. Fortunately nature and evolution understood the need for pain as well as governments.
But really I’d like to here how a libertarian would order society (yeah I know) without appealing to the need for human nature to change. That’s ultimately what the libertarian is asking or expecting. No lets not order society lets just hope the mass of humanity changes its nature to be or like me. Really guys??? That’s your philosophy on life. I’d seriously consider starting over with some of your most basic assumptions.
Muirgeo,
“Is there a better idea on how to organize a society with out a government. Or with a government of, by and for the people.”
Yes – Limited government of, by and for the people. Or better stated, State governments competing to offer better government to the people they serve. While the Federal government enforces the absolute right of the free movement of people and property between the states and protects the country from invasion by foreign powers.
All – An idea to further limit the power of the Federal Government. A constitutional amendment removing the power to tax from the Feds and replacing it with a fixed percent of the taxes collected by the states. All states have to contribute 10-15% of collected taxes.
“Yes – Limited government of, by and for the people.”
I don’t think that is what most people want. Based on surveys and polls. I don’t think most people want socialism but they do generally want more things like public transportation, universal health care good roads, good schools ect….
I want a ferrari, a rolex, a butler, a closet filled with bespoke suits and shoes, a palatial villa on the Mediterranean, a personal jet so I could fly to my palatial villa on the Mediterranean, a harem filled with a mix of clean and tested pornstars and virgins willing to be taught, and a pet dragon, but I don’t want to pay for it.
I’m fine with others paying for it, though.
Hell, I got even more wants if you want to hear them.
What a grave failure of capitalism and market-based systems that all that stuff isn’t put on your lap. snark.
“A Ferrari in every garage in a vacation villa on the Med!!”
Great campaign slogan.
nice
Yes! I want all those things too! Funny thing is only a free market even has a chance of getting you all that stuff. Could you imagine any government producing a Ferrari? A Jet?
Your unlimited government just started bombing yet another country.
I hope you got what you wanted.
More strawmen
What you have is a mish mash of things expected from a limited government along with something that isn’t.
Why not just list things that people want that a limited government doesn’t provide?
“Based on surveys and polls. I don’t think most people want socialism but they do generally want more things like public transportation, universal health care good roads, good schools ect….”
They’re certainly not getting that now with this level of intrusiveness. The fact that people want to ‘double down’ leads to this maxim articulated a long time ago:
- Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
What does to produce? Useful idiots…
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx
All these things are provided by the free-market not by governments.
People buy cars and pay taxes to get roads built.
Universal health care is provided by a health care system that competes to get consumers health care dollars.
More educational materials are available today than ever before in the form of books, paper, computers, training, private tutors, access to jobs, scholarships.
We assume that all these things are pooped out by governments but government only imped and set up institutions to control large chunks of these activities. Can’t say they would not have occurred without the intervention.
But you probably mean inefficient unprofitable rail systems, a coercive mysterious universal health care bureaucracy and public schools that are at best spotty and inefficient. Is this what you think the government provides?
So you agree with muirgeo that government is the answer?
I never thought of the Federal government taxing the states. This would mean the states would check the Central government instead of competing amongst themselves like pigs for the slop laid down for them. It would no longer be just up to the individual to fight the Federal government. Any idea that limits a governments power is a good idea. This idea needs some discussion!
“Is there a better idea n how to organize a society with out a government. Or with a government of, by and for the people.”
Straw Man
When you guys reply Straw Man… that usually means you don’t have an answer.
No. That means it’s a strawman and doesn’t deserve an answer.
The strawman in this case is you pretending that the argument is for no government whatsoever and…in different response…that limited government doesn’t include things roads, transportation and even schools in the right capacity. Moreover, the discussion is about military interventions….which makes your response even more of a strawman.
BTW, when you don’t reply an ever mounting pile of substantive responses to you, THAT is what is generally considered “not having an answer”.
BTW, Muirgeo
This is an example of going to a place that is hostile to my views and discussing in good faith:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/03/paul-krugman-the-forgotten-millions.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e2014e86ce3c00970d
Here’s an example of a silly, ad hominem response to me with no substance. I let it be:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/03/the-end-of-the-washington-consensus.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e2014e86acf585970d
Am I perfect? No.
Do I claim to be? No
Am I making strawman arguments? No.
Am I directly answering, as time and interest allows, the responses in an honest fashion that attempts to address the point of my respondent? YES.
Do I always get a fair answer? No.
But the crap you pull is a far cry from that. I try. But when someone behaves like you, I abandon niceness.
Read the answer above, John V, and tell me if you don’t agree that this is the worst case of end-stage Metastatic Stupidity you’ve ever seen.
It’s time to end aggressive measures and pull the plug.
He’s a twit, a troll, a moron, an antagonizer, a pea brain and a classic foolish idiot. Ad Hominem? Yes. But it’s deserved. His answers are so pathetic that they require little to address. After that, it’s punching bag time.
I realize that not feeding the troll is the best way to rid of one but it’s just so tempting sometimes.
By “aggressive measures” I just meant “serious replies”. You will never cure him of idiocy. It’s time for palliative care – feeding nonsense with nonsense until he gets tired and goes away.
Ad Hominem? No.
In an ad-hom argument you say that someone’s argument is bunk because they are a “such-and-such”. You ignore the argument and instead attack the arguer.
In this case you are observing that the muirdiot is a ree-ree (apologies to any retards who might be offended by being compared to the muirdiot) because he puts forth arguments that are so damn ignorant that one can only conclude that the source of the argument is severely damaged.
Does that make sense?
Well, John V, calling TFI a…well…TFI is not really an ad hominem.
You’re needn’t touch the mish-mash of poorly strung together word fragments. You can diagnose retardation based on the fact that they’re word fragments without attemting to decipher the the fragments at all.
No there’s nothing pathetic about me… I”m asking the same questions the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time have asked through the ages and often acknowledged they had no easy answers to. YOU are the ones who have absolutism on your side and any deviance from YOUR prescriptions for society are considered blasphemy.
I”m asking the same questions the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time have asked through the ages and often acknowledged they had no easy answers to.
Oh goody. Delusions of grandeur. It’s time for his pychiatrist to up the dosage of Lithium.
But really I’d like to here how a libertarian would order society…
Alphabetically.
But, in order by height is much more visually appealing when everyone stands in an orderly line.
These frickin fascists can imagine nothing but ordering society around.
That’s kinda what I thought. Any deeper thought then knee-jerkism isn’t a part of libertarian philosophy. You guys obviously like the world to be real simple and are obviously stompping your feet mad and upset that it isn’t so.
I have long watched you wage war on the English language, but what do you have against the alphabet?
What do you have against ideas that are different from yours?
When you have an idea, I’ll let you know.
It’s called making fun of you.
Well of course you do because that is easier then trying to address difficult ideas.
You’ve been addressed too many times. They’re easy to find. Just look for all the responses to you with no reply.
Why must things be “ordered”?
What’s wrong with liberty?
Too much disorder. OCD sufferers don’t like it.
Or, I should say CDO sufferers. It’s like OCD, but the letters are in order….as the should be.
Well I suggest you go live in Ethiopia or Haiti and maybe you will see the value of order. OR you can tell me of a place or time or country on which Libertopia might be modeled that is relevant to the real world.
When was your last trip to Ethiopia and Haiti, Muirdiot?
Haiti and Ethiopia’s problems are not for lack of government. Your shallow understanding of pretty everything prevents you from seeing a little deeper.
The people of Ethiopia and Haiti have pretty much no economic liberty thanks to a deeply corrupted government.
It is nearly impossible to start a business or do anything that produces value, because once you do the government thugs come along and take it away.
You would be quite at home.
War is a terrible thing. It is the last resort. Is there a moral imperative? Is there a strategic reason? In Afghanistan and Iraq we are basically fighting barbarians. People who don’t understand freedom and other philosophical ideas like individual rights. Do we care? No, until they attack us or attack is imminent. We could ignore it and draw a ring around them like we did with the Soviet Union. But the Soviets were rational people by and large, believe it or not. In the Middle East, people just hate each other. Unlike the Soviets they don’t care about how others may retaliate. They are on a mission from god. There are no borders.. this is my land, this is yours. With the Soviets we were competing; with the Islamo-fascists we are waiting for the next shoe to drop. Unless political change comes to these countries, with the threat of nuclear weapons, it is just a matter of time before the civilized countries of the world will have to take action. What do you do? At what point is enough enough? Politics or whatever you want to call it is a process. The process is unfolding now. We have moral imperatives but also moral restraints. For the other side, there is only moral imperatives. Can we wait them out and let their societies collapse like the Soviet Union or is time running out?
How dare people in the middle east complain when we support ruthless dictators over them and station troops in their lands and surround them with our navy.
They should be thankful for their wise and benevolent overlords.
Isn’t the first rule of a successfully waged war to marshal the populace into believing in the war? One of the easier ways to do so would be to engender a fear and hatred of the enemy.
I must say, I agree wholeheartedly. Those aren’t real people over there. They’re all faceless jihadists. If we only we weren’t bound by our moral restraints, then we could make the world safe from these inhuman, godless(ours is the real god, obvi), ruthless, uncivilized, irrational, dangerous, maniacal barbarians.
Does it justify extorting funds from those they laughingly claim to serve?
jorod,
“In Afghanistan and Iraq we are basically fighting barbarians.”
Really? How so, jorod? I bet you a dollar to a doughnut that you have never considered this:
Afghan stonings for adulterous acts Vs USA partial birth abortions.
By the numbers, jorod, which nation would you think the more murderous and barbaric?
Or, to take the comparison farther: Years between 1990 and 1994.
Number of Afghan stonings for any reason Vs number of USA men, women, and children burned to death in the Branch Davidian compound. Which nation was the more murderous and barbaric?
A nation that has standards and observes standards is far less barbaric than a nation with no standards and no judgments.
Which describes Afghanistan? Which describes the USA?
“We could ignore it and draw a ring around them like we did with the Soviet Union.”
No jorod, the Soviet Union drew a ring around itself. Russia used the satellite countries like an “Iron Curtain” to quote Winston Chruchill.
Yeah, the USA, with its popular, extremely well paid, singers on stage in huge concerts singing “I”d like to fuck you blind” (Kid Rock), any performance by the freak Madonna and the clones she generated, and education system that produces consumers and obeyers, definitely makes us the cultural center of the universe……why can’t those barbarians just understand that?
Jorod, trying to have a conversation on military issues with “libertarians”, is like trying to have a conversation with your cat. You get the same exact response to everything…an as* stuck in your face.
If it were for these people, the Soviet Union would still be around today, 80% of the world would be communist, Kim Jong Il would be happily ruling over all of Korea, Saddam would still have songs written about him, and Qaddafi could be relaxing right now.
Their concept of military affairs is still suck in 1776, which was great for 1776 when the enemy had muskets, rode horses, and took 3 months to cross the pond…and our economic activity was limited to how far a horse could pull a cart.
They’re all so proud and happy of globalization and free trade and getting goods from anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye and billions of people climbing the economic ladder…but never did they stop to think…hey who protects all of this?? Whatever happened to the USSR and its wonderful little economic system which had 50% of the world in its grasp??
They apply the concepts of economic affairs to things which bear no relationship to economic affairs (or rather they do, but they refuse to see the whole picture). In economic affairs we are free to make independent and dispersed decisions, with associated winning and losses…and most importantly…FREE from coercive forces thanks to the SECURITY mechanisms we have created. I CAN’T steal your car, if you don’t want to sell it to me…because I will be retaliated upon by FORCE from the police, and I will be punished by the courts…or in the absence of these systems, YOU will shoot me. Well what is the international mechanism for this?? And even when they concede this point…they then say “but they never attacked ME, so why are we involved?”…
…as if to say…”If I see a thief stealing from my neighbor, WHY should I give a damn?”
Well, I wonder how that TV of yours made in South Korea… ended up being made in South Korea. (of course you will NEVER EVER hear a “libertarian” use South Korea as an example of military intervention. They pretend it doesn’t exist, along with the dozens of other examples just like it)
“If it were for these people, the Soviet Union would still be around today, 80% of the world would be communist, Kim Jong Il would be happily ruling over all of Korea, Saddam would still have songs written about him, and Qaddafi could be relaxing right now. ”
WOW.
there’s a picture floating around of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
So you actually believe communism works as an economic system?
We also receive a few trade goods from China and I don’t remember us liberating China.
Also, if you think it’s just libertarians opposing military action in Libya, you’re not reading the conservative press. Let me make some conservative arguments for you.
We’re already fighting two wars. Read the military readiness reports if you want to understand how overstretched our military is right now.
Sure, we can lob a few bombs at Qaddafi, but if we’re going to win the war in Libya we’re going to need to go in on the ground which means we’re going to have to occupy it. And an occupation will fail because we don’t speak the language and we don’t understand the tribal dynamics. Western empires have not done well occupying tribal nations. Read the histories of Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa.
Our win loss record in wars outside of the Americas and Europe is far from perfect. We did well against Japan but we ended up dropping nuclear bombs to finish the job. We didn’t do so well in Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon. Afghanistan is a quagmire and Iraq promises to be an endless occupation. Even Korea was only a tie and one in which we risked full-scale war with China.
Not that I support the action, but I don’t think troops on the ground will be necessary in Libya. Once they beat the hell out of Daffy Duck’s troops, there’s a damn good chance that he’ll disappear and that’s the only war they’re fighting – just kicking him out. Of course, there’s always government’s impulse to meddle beyond the original mission….
I hope you’re right, but many who understand military operations far better than I do worry that Qaddafi can win on the ground without air cover.
I meant to say that Qaddafi can beat his opposition on the ground and that we’ll have to go in on the ground to stop him from doing so.
Carlsoane,
Well, since we’re in, I hope they’re wrong. The air strikes are taking out his tanks on the ground – not just imposing a no fly zone. They’re actively bombing all of his ground positions. As they do that, the rebels are pushing back into territory they lost to him over the past week. This time there’s a lot of support from the Arab street. And I mean A LOT.
Amr Moussa is up to his usual, albeit updated, “the crusaders vs. us” speech after asking for the no fly zone, but at least the Arab street is not buying it. They’re responding that he asked for a no fly zone and this is what it looks like. This twitter-fueled transformation of Arabs is stunning. They have powerful incentives to view the West as allies. I don’t think they’ve acquired a taste for neo-colonialism as much as modernity and liberty. But, then this changing taste may mean that we don’t have to ever actually put boot to ground.
I wouldn’t have advocated this action, but since it’s here, hoping for the best is all we can do.
Fingers crossed.
“Our win loss record in wars outside of the Americas and Europe is far from perfect. We did well against Japan but we ended up dropping nuclear bombs to finish the job. We didn’t do so well in Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon. Afghanistan is a quagmire and Iraq promises to be an endless occupation. Even Korea was only a tie and one in which we risked full-scale war with China.”
“There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.” Gen George S. Patton
Let’s view your jumble of erratic analysis through an eye not confused with political correctness and socialist idiocy that took root with the FDR administration, someone like myself and Gen Patton.
“Our win loss record in wars outside of the Americas and Europe is far from perfect.
Actually it is pretty damn good and when our troops were allowed to kill people and break things we won the wars we fought, no question. Beginning with WWII and FDR’s infatuation with communism we saw our troops being deliberately held back so that the Soviets could capture Berlin and substantial portions of Germany. Without orders to hold back, there would have been no Berlin wall, no Berlin airlift, and most of Germany would never have suffered the communist bootheel.
” We did well against Japan but we ended up dropping nuclear bombs to finish the job.”
You are confused. We did a good job against the Japanese because they weren’t communist, we were allowed to kill people and break things without regard to their ideology, hence the atom bombs to make that good job even more “gooder”.
” We didn’t do so well in Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon. Afghanistan is a quagmire and Iraq promises to be an endless occupation.”
Right my man, and the reason is stated above, the socialist and other much brained in our government did not and will not allow the troops to do what troops must do to win, kill people and break things. The actions you list would be short term doable tasks if our troops were allowed to make war. ((Personally, I question the need for any and all of those actions, but that is not the purpose of my rebuttal to you.))
“Even Korea was only a tie and one in which we risked full-scale war with China.”
Again Korea pointed the futility of making war against a communist nation and using the U.N. as an authority for the action. The Soviet Union sat (sits still) on the Security Council, and the security council has to be kept abreast on the conduct of the war, plans and intended actions included. Do you suppose, for even just a second suspect, that the moment plans and strategy are revealed to the Security Council that the Soviets immediately forwarded those to the communist nation being fought, in this instance North Korea? Well my good man, they did and that is why our troops were almost beaten out of Korea. The tide only changed when McAurthur understood what was happening and concealed his plans from his own government so that he could achieve victory. Furthermore we were at war with Red China. U.S. Forces once freed from their own government could fight like hell and pushed the N. Koreans back up to the Yalu River, when the Red Chinese entered the war with massive troop invasions and again troops had to recover and begin pushing the Chinese back, which they did. The last real mistake Truman made was firing McArthur and denying use of the Atom Bomb on China. Had we done so there would have been a damn thing any nation in the world could have done in retaliation, and the world would have gotten over it by now just as they have the bombing of Japan, and the world you live in would look much different than what you see today, quite likely much for the better.
Even chickens understand pecking order better than the mush brained and the socialist.
First, if you think we should have nuked the Chinese during the Korean War, you’re nuts.
That subtle debate point aside, as far as I can tell your argument is that we would be everywhere and at all times triumphant if we just cut the military loose. We have a magnificent military but the only time we will cut the military loose is when we are fighting for our survival, which is clearly not the case in Libya. In places like Libya individual survival and political survival will guide our actions because national survival is not at stake. You may wish it otherwise but it isn’t.
Also in places like Libya, Vietnam, Afghanistan the mission is complicated by our lack of understanding of the culture, the language and the terrain and the logistical problems of trying to contain populations that are thousands of miles away.
If you think my ideas find their root in FDR and Socialism I suggest you read George Washington’s Farewell Address. He, for one, knew the dangers to liberty of an expansive military and entangling alliances.
…as far as I can tell your argument is that we would be everywhere and at all times triumphant if we just cut the military loose.
I expect a reply like that from Gil. I think your reading comprehension is better.
There was far more substance than that to Vidyohs’ post, but part of his point was to point out that, if the government is going to call upon its military, it damn well better cut it lose. If we’re not fighting for our survival, then what the Hell are our boys doing over there in the first place? Not fighting with all of the ferocity our troops can bring to bear in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq has needlessly cost the lives of Americans. You know, the people our government is supposed to be protecting?
He (George Washington), for one, knew the dangers to liberty of an expansive military and entangling alliances.
Tell that to Truman, LBJ, and the Bushes. MacArthur, Westmoreland, Schwarzkopf, Franks, and Patraeus were only trying to win the wars their civilian masters started through entangled alliances.
Brotio:
Part of the “substance” of Vidyohs post was pointing out that the world would quite likely be a better place if we had just nuked the Chinese.
Otherwise, a part of my argument is that you cannot divorce the military from political constraints. The constraints are designed into the system. Arguing that we would have been more successful if we didn’t have those constraints ignores reality. In fact, I would argue that we would face worse problems if we didn’t have those constraints.
Lastly, I would argue that we are at a marked disadvantage when we fight land wars in Africa and Asia and we should be especially cautious about getting into them.
Carl,
I took Vidyohs’ point to be that if we’re going to fight – fight to win. If using nukes against China was what was necessary to win, then you do what you’ve gotta do and maybe politicians will think twice about casual warfare. I believe the world would be a better place, if once the politicians started the wars, they had allowed the men they conscripted to win in Korea and Vietnam.
Otherwise, a part of my argument is that you cannot divorce the military from political constraints.
I think you’re looking at it backward. The problem is that our politicians are divorced from military reality. The constraint on the military is that it isn’t allowed to declare wars, and the Commander-in-Chief is a civilian.
I would argue that we are at a marked disadvantage when we fight land wars in Africa and Asia and we should be especially cautious about getting into them.
The military didn’t get us into those Asian wars – Congress and Presidents did. Once we’re there, there shouldn’t be a constraint on winning.
Okay. I think we agree on the following principles:
A. The military should not be sent into action lightly.
B. It is and always has been the civilian government, not the military who decides when we go to war.
C. The civilian government will sometimes go to war for short term domestic political concerns.
I think we disagree on the following principle:
D. The civilian government should place constraints on the military’s actions in prosecuting a war.
I believe that as long as principle A is followed, principle D will not cause problems. But because principle B means that we will sometimes violate principle A because of principle C, we will continue to find ourselves in situations where principle A has been violated. At those times, it’s still important to rely on principle D to prevent General MacArthur from nuking the Chinese.
We do agree on a lot.
We probably even have some agreement on your Point D.
Before I explain where I stand on Point D, I’d like to clean up the semantics of your last statement. It was never MacArthur’s decision to use nukes, only (possibly) his recommendation. The decision rests with the president. I think the president should have made it plain that China was a nuclear target if it engaged US forces in Korea.
Our disagreement on Point D, is in where to place the constraints. I wouldn’t resort to nukes unless that was the only way to secure victory. Other than that, I would instruct the military to observe the Geneva Conventions while doing everything possible to convince the enemy that engaging the US Military is a death sentence.
I have no problem believing that we could defeat any country in the world militarily. Just don’t ask the military to create a functioning society afterwards.
Anyone who believes, and I am not claiming that you do, that a functional society can be built needs a serious lesson in history.
Brotio: Well said, but I confess that there are times when I think you accept defeat rather than drop nukes. Vietnam was one. But I see this as just one more reason that you don’t go to war except for reasons of national survival.
S_M_V: I agree with you that we cannot ask the military to create functioning societies. But I don’t think we can defeat anyone in the world militarily, at least not in any theater. We would, for example, lose land wars in China and Russia.
Carl,
Thanks for the kind words. Back at ya.
They apply the concepts of economic affairs to things which bear no relationship to economic affairs (or rather they do, but they refuse to see the whole picture).
Economics bears on everything, especially the activities of our glorious empire, which have resulted in the U.S. government communizing vast resources to support global power projection.
To me, there are three types of intertwined and sound economic arguments.
There’s the basic “mechanical one” which informs how to view on economic exchange. I think of Adam Smith, Riccardo, Mises and others.
Then there’s the “knowledge one” which informs how scattered information influences the mechanical argument. Hayek is #1 is this area. His essay on “The Use of Knowledge in Society” opens this Pandora’s box. It does the most to explain the problem with socialism and planned economies.
Then there’s the “Public Choice one” which shows the pitfalls and flaws of government based on incentives. But it also informs how to take the Knowledge Argument I mentioned and point it squarely at government to show how utterly incapable it is of accomplishing much of what it pretends it can do.
On foreign affairs, the second and third are incredibly applicable and it really amazes me how conservatives, and “National Greatness Conservatives” in particular, can easily use this logic on one hand and totally ignore it on the other. Stunning.
If it were for these people, the Soviet Union would still be around today,
You’re going to have to lay that logic out for me.
Whatever happened to the USSR and its wonderful little economic system which had 50% of the world in its grasp??
yeah. ‘splain that too, Lucy.
That’s kind of what I was thinking. The USSR imploded from within. It was economically incapable of sustaining itself. You can argue that the arms race helped impoverish it faster but that still doesn’t change the final outcome. It’s only a matter of degrees.
Hah.
Ronald Reagan defeated the USSR and rescued the USA economy from dirtbags within looking to party their lives away on other people’s blood, sweat, and tears.
Get over it.
there’s nothing to get over. It was what it was.
This seems to matter a lot more to you than it does to me.
whuuuut? You’re starting to sound like a right wing version of Muirdiot.
Methinks knows way more about the USSR than you…unless you came from there as well.
You don’t have to come from there to know a lot about it and, as politicians go, I like Reagan. But defeated the USSR?
M’lady, you’re trying to debate a person whose mind is like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set. He knows what he knows and that is that. Seems a whole lot like Disingenuous Kuehn when you think about it, only from the opposite slant.
E.G. said “they then say “but they never attacked ME, so why are we involved?”…”
Actually, what I say is not that “we” are involved, but rather ‘they’ are involved: ‘they’ being the government people. And, their involvement is paid for with money stolen from me.
Exactly. A band of Americans parking a slug of lead in Qaddafi’s murderous skull isn’t what offends me. Using those same guns to extort booty from me and then claim their overseas actions are at my request and in my service, does.
Well said. I get the feeling that E.G. hasn’t really talked with any libertarians. If he has, they obviously weren’t very thoughtful ones.
I just can’t stop…
E.G. said we are “FREE from coercive forces thanks to the SECURITY mechanisms we have created.”
The alleged security mechanism that they have created were created as a direct result of coervice force. Moreover, these self-same alleged security mechanisms are used nearly exclusively as coercive forces.
E.G. also said “I CAN’T steal your car, if you don’t want to sell it to me…because I will be retaliated upon by FORCE from the police, and I will be punished by the courts”
Nevermind the fact that the police very seldom recover stolen items and almost never stop crimes in progress, their ‘services’ too are paid for by coercion, threats of violence and theft.
E.G.’s argument appears to be something like ‘You stupid libertarians don’t realize that we need a gang of thieves to protect us from gangs of thieves.”
I hesitate to call EG a troll, but he certainly isn’t very thoughtful. Almost all crime, including theft, is preventing by private nongovernmental action. Police are little more than record-keepers of crime. And enough people have recognized the injustice and inefficiency of government courts to create a huge practice of out of court settlements and private dispute arbitration.
But EG does at least seem coherent, and so there is hope that the propaganda can be wiped from his eyes.