Freedom. . . to leave.

[CavalrySoldier]

I'm beginning to wonder if I joined the wrong party when I left the Republican Party.

I thought I was joining a party of people who loved freedom, were willing to fight for it, and were willing to fight so others could enjoy the kinds of freedoms that we now have, and the kinds that we are fighting to have restored.  I understood that the LP was against a standing army kept ready to invade peace loving countries, but only to keep that which is large enough for a defense.  However, the people on the LP and FSP websites seem to be very against the war in Iraq.  A war in which our military has:

     Rid that country of a dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, murdered tens of thousands of Kurds within Iraqi borders, and murdered tens of thousands of Kuwaiti People while taking over and occupying that country fifteen years ago.

     Built hundreds of schools in Iraq where boys and girls will be able to study.

     Built structure to bring the outlying areas of Iraq into this century(many parts of Iraq previously did not have power, phone or clean water possibilities)

     Given the people of Iraq a government that allows them to vote for the kinds of leader that they wish to have protect them.

     Most importantly our government has charged the country of Iraq not one dinar, not one dollar, not one coin of gold nor drop of oil for these precious gifts.

Maybe you say that all of this is fine but that we shouldn't have gone in there because Iraq was of no threat to us.  You'd be incorrect.  Sadam had supported terrorists, and threatened our country.  You may say that his threats don't matter, what could he have done? I say he previously had weapons of mass destruction, and on the possible chance he didn't have them while making his last threats to us I would say he still had the capabilities to make more and he had previously used them on Iran, Kurds, even his own people, proving he is more than willing to use them. 

Some of you might say we have botched the job because the News tells us of people over there being killed in the streets.  First I wonder why you so trust the news that calls you all a bunch of radical crazies and supported Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Second I wonder if you have ever heard of places called Los Angeles, Houston, New York City, or Washington DC?  If I have understood the papers correctly, these places are all far more dangerous than any city in Iraq.

I am not saying we should start a draft, everyone in this country is free to either join the military or not.  I am not saying you are required to go out into the streets and wave a flag, everyone in this country is free to show their support or not (unlike in many countries where failing to show support for the party may get you arrested).  I am not even suggesting that we stay there for over fifty years like we have done with both Germany and Japan, just that we stay there long enough to protect the Iraqis as best as we can from terrorists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. and grant their people the support they need for their freedom and safety to flourish.

Well, these are at least the things that I support, I am wondering if these are the things that the LP and FSP support.  Please let me know.  If I chose the wrong party I shall go looking for another and let the FSP know to drop me from their roles.

Todd
aka CavalrySoldier

[Minsk]

I am not saying we should start a draft, everyone in this country is free to either join the military or not.  I am not saying you are required to go out into the streets and wave a flag, everyone in this country is free to show their support or not (unlike in many countries where failing to show support for the party may get you arrested).  I am not even suggesting that we stay there for over fifty years like we have done with both Germany and Japan, just that we stay there long enough to protect the Iraqis as best as we can from terrorists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. and grant their people the support they need for their freedom and safety to flourish.

IMO, the only difference between what you propose and the libertarian viewpoint is that you need to add:

I am not even suggesting that we make you pay for the non-defensive use of our military, everyone in this country is free to contribute or not.

Whether or not Sadam was a potential threat, the fact remains that his army was not invading the US. And today, someone living in the US who decides not to support the war with their taxes will be assaulted, have their property confiscated, and be thrown in jail. Does that sound like freedom to you?

<edit>And Dreepa makes a better point anyway. I gotta put that hammer away </edit>

[Dreepa]

Not everyone in the FSP is in the LP.

The FSP has people with all sorts of viewpoints.
I can think of about 10 people in the FSP who support the war in Iraq.
I can think of about 10 people in the FSP who oppose the war in Iraq.
I can think of about 10 people in the FSP who are concentrating on local NH issues.

The FSP is etc etc etc.

[CavalrySoldier]

IMO, the only difference between what you propose and the libertarian viewpoint is that you need to add:

I am not even suggesting that we make you pay for the non-defensive use of our military, everyone in this country is free to contribute or not.

Whether or not Sadam was a potential threat, the fact remains that his army was not invading the US. And today, someone living in the US who decides not to support the war with their taxes will be assaulted, have their property confiscated, and be thrown in jail. Does that sound like freedom to you?

I didn't want to start a debate, simply asked a yes or no question.  much like voting.  You vote for the candidate who you like best (or if in a two party system the candidate you hate least) and give your briefest possible answer, a check on the appropriate block.

However, since I still sit here at my computer, I shall respond to these two points.

I suggest you go to any country on this planet of your choice and chose not to pay the appropriate taxes for three years and see if you are in prison, dead, or free enough to still walk around.  I say three years because it takes longer than that (usually much longer) for this country to get around to jailing you for not paying any kind of tax, and as for sales tax, if you short the cashier you get nothing from them, literally.

As for your whole "potential threat" arguement I would bet that on 9/11 you were one of the people who screamed that it was The Governments fault for having let it happen.  Also, is a country invading when they monetarily support terrorists illegaly crossing into your country with the purpose of killing your innoscent people or do they have to send uniformed soldiers with geneva category identification cards?

Now, the reason I brought up voting in the first place... In this country and a few others we elect people who are to make decisions in certain official matters when it is diffacult (to say the least) to get everyone to make a group decision.  These people are called "elected officials."  The elected officials typically gather into groups so that the unenlightened masses can choose the appropriate candidate without doing the recomended research and still choose the one that they might have chosen had they done the research.  These groups are called parties, and yes alcohol is served or Ted would run as an independant.  Every party has certain goals, for instance the democrates believe that Christians are evil and don't want the youth of today to even know that Christians exist, but all other religions (with the exception of Jews, because they often agree with Christians) should be taught about in public schools, and the democrates want you to pay for this.  The Libertarians believe that everyone is free to smoke whatever they want, and they don't want anyone to have to pay for you to smoke or quit smoking through tax funds.  Now, nobody will ever agree one hundred percent with all of the goals and beliefs of his political party unless A:  he is the guy who wrote the document that his party follows.  B:  He is the party's only member.  Or C:  He is a mindless dweeb following a charismatic figure.  And I don't agree with everything that the LP supports, but I have a few key issues that I will join or leave a party on the basis of, and providing for my safety is one of these key issues.  If the LP, like the DNC, thinks nobody will ever bother us if we are weak and smile and teach everyone elses beliefs in our public schools, than I am sorry, I am in the wrong organization.  I will quietly leave and find another third party or end up as an independant if I can find no suitable party.

So again, read my first post on this chain and please add to the chain saying something like "Please stay Todd, we love you."  or tell me to "Go F#<K yourself Todd, you suck!"  Just keep it simple and try not to debate, a simple yes or no is all I need.

And thank you Mr. Minsk for pointing out to me that I had failed to be succinct in this matter.

[citizen_142002]

The LP dropped most of its platform regarding any foreign policy matters. The short answer is that preemptive war is not permitted under libertarian theory unless the other party is clearly moving to strike you. If you believe that Saddam directly aided terrorists with the intention of purpotrating violence against the US, then you could justify the war.
Most Libertarians, including myself do not believe that Iraq was such a clear or present threat to justify military action. Although some do. Even if you believe there was cause for war, you should still call for a declaration of War, which the Congress has failed to give for any conflict since 1941. The consitution does not condone police actions.

[CavalrySoldier]

Even if you believe there was cause for war, you should still call for a declaration of War, which the Congress has failed to give for any conflict since 1941. The consitution does not condone police actions.

As long as the republicrates outnumber everyone else in both houses there will never again be a declaration of war, but on that point I greatly agree with you, there should have been a declaration of war.

[aries]

I fail to support the existence of a state run military.

Especially in times of peace

[FTL_Ian]

I do not want to pay for military adventurism.  Raise funds for your violence on a voluntary basis, please.

[Minsk]

So again, read my first post on this chain and please add to the chain saying something like "Please stay Todd, we love you."  or tell me to "Go F#<K yourself Todd, you suck!"  Just keep it simple and try not to debate, a simple yes or no is all I need.

So far as the FSP is concerned, and I certainly can't speak for the organization, you will definitely find like-minded people. IMO, anyone who feels that the US needs a less totalitarian government would fit in fairly well -- NH was chosen as the most free, and the stated goal of the FSP is to make it even better.

Yup, I should've left that hammer alone... but just so you can understand where the sentiment actually comes from, rather than some moronic Liberal conspiracy:

So far as I am concerned, nothing can ever make theft, coercion or the initiation of force moral. Theft to give to poor people is just as evil as theft to fund a military expedition. And equally as likely to produce a bloated, inefficient, ineffective beurocracy... like both the social services and today's military.

Put an efficient fighting force on the ground in Afghanistan to beat down the Taliban and Al Queida, and I would probably contribute. Put a bloated and inefficient force in Iraq to remove a dictator that the War on Communism installed in the first place... yeah, you can do that with someone else's money.

<edit>And just for reference, on 9/11 I was bitching that the government caused it... by preventing the passengers from carrying handguns. A few guys with knives, or guns, on a plane where everyone is also armed are kind of... well... dead.</edit>

[Jason Rand]

Please stay Todd.

[Braddogg]

You forgot the deaths.  Anytime someone talks about WAR and downplays DEATH, it's a sign that the debate isn't going to be productive.  At least 40,000 civilians, over 2,000 coalition soldiers.  That's like my entire hometown being killed.  Gotta break some eggs to make some omlets, eh?  But you're so kind in not calling for a draft.  Thank you for just forcing me to PAY for these deaths instead of pick up a gun and kill a few brown folk myself (to free them, of course).

I wonder how you feel about Hamas.  They, too, educate children and provide for orphans with one hand and kill human beings with the other.

If this is your One Big Issue, if you want me to provide for YOUR feeling of safety by making ME feel terribly unsafe, then perhaps the LP isn't for you.

[Caleb]

calvary,

I would say that the general tendency of almost all Libertarians that I know is to oppose war unless we have been attacked, which clearly did not happen in the case of Iraq.  Not only did Saddam not attack us, it appears that he had no capability of doing so. 

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were planned prior to 9/11, so 9/11 becomes no longer a cause of war, but rather a pretext.

My best suggestion to you, since you come from the Republican bent is to read a book by Pat Buchanan called "A Republic, Not an Empire"; it explains why the US position actually causes the very terror it purportedly seeks to prevent, and exposes Americans to grave danger, both at home and abroad.

Best wishes,

Caleb

[Dave Ridley]

Cavalry:  Assuming all the people here disagree with you on Iraq, or one or two other issues....

Does that make them any less useful when it comes to their actual mission:  Protecting the individual from government overstep?

[Spencer]

Even if you believe there was cause for war, you should still call for a declaration of War, which the Congress has failed to give for any conflict since 1941. The consitution does not condone police actions.

As long as the republicrates outnumber everyone else in both houses there will never again be a declaration of war, but on that point I greatly agree with you, there should have been a declaration of war.

A declaration of war would, of course, be nice, but as the following quote from then-Chairman of the House International Relations Committee (in response to Ron Paul's request that the House vote on a declaration of war) Henry Hyde reveals, certain parts of the Constitution are "no longer relevant to a modern society":

"It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one. Letters of mark and reprisal are others. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society."

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2003/libe220-20030421-01.html#letter7

I'm glad that we have congressmen and presidents to tell us which parts of the Constitution are "no longer relevant to a modern society" (like warrants, the 2nd Amendment, etc.).

I'm not trying to threadjack -- I think that this post is relevant to the topic.

And to give my concise (yeah, right) opinion: no standing federal armies, please (and no entangling alliances).

[felix.benner]

In my short time in the German so-called "Freedom party" I have met many people of the "less government but ..."-type. They do advocate less government except for one minor topic where they see government intervention as something good. Now whenever they meet other people of their kind they of course disagree about that one topic and in order to gain a majority they are willing to put up with the other guy's point. Now it is "less government, but not with a and b". Of course this goes on and on until a majority is reached. So they build a comitee and debate on their politics and find after some debate one minor topic where they all agree that less government is good. And the end of the story is: They institute more and more government in all areas of life and still point to that one insignificant topic and claim: see, we reduced government.
The true enemies of freedom are the "Yes, but"-types because they really mean "No". Of course there might be some of the "yes-but"-people who are ready to give up on their minor topic in order to get the major topics of freedom through. Those are obvious exceptions from the previous statement since they will soon find that more freedom on that minor topic won't hurt either and are therefore valuable allies. Now, the hard part is telling them apart.