Drew:And how can a welfare state make that happen?
I'm opposed to the welfare state as much as you. But I figure that over time an increased diversity of ethnicity and cultural norms will result in a positive correlation with the Libertarian mindset of a population (i.e., it is immigration, not the welfare state that will produce such results).
Racist folks are pretty much harmless nowdays. The best thing to do is not to talk to them. I noticed that some of my liberal politically correct friends are closet racists. There's nothing, anyone, can do to stop people, no matter how much education.
I agree with this, of course. In fact this was my view even in the days of my leftness. But I maintain that one of the best counter activities to racism is not, as you would point out, coercion, but providing minorities with the rights to protect themselves. I completely know what you mean about not all racists being violent but there is a problem with general thuggery, especially in largely white dominated areas where an Asian might be trying to set up a shop or, conversely largely Asian or black dominated areas where a white man will feel intimidated. I was watching a documentary about an Asian woman suffering intimidation from both whites and blacks in the local area. My beliefs are that shop keepers and business owners should be able to bandy together to employ security for the street - an armed patrol guard or CCTV, for instance - for safety of themselves, their own business and that of the consumer.
We can stop violence, that's for sure, but we can't interfere with their thoughts.
Agreed. But minorities must have the ability to defend themselves, which is precisely why gun laws ought to be liberated. An interesting point is that if you abolish democracy, people will feel less threatened about immigrants voting them out of their wealth and be more willing to just live and let live. The welfare state does cause a lot of social problems. But I still maintain the total legitimacy of open borders under any circumstance. It seems certain Libertarians like Rothbard are against tarriffs and controls when it suits them but for them when it does not. That said, Rothbard did take a far more extreme stance than me, being an anarcho-capitalist and all.
Yes, I heard about that. I always thought muslims go to their mosque and just mind their own business. The ones I know are very peacefull people.
Oh yeah sure they're nice people and all and a lot of them who are in favour of sharia law have good intentions, like a lot of left liberals who are in favour of welfarism, environmentalism, et cetera but inevitably the ideology slows down economic growth and prosperity though they cannot see this; they can only see greedy rich people.
And besides that's only 40%, this means the other 60% are "nice".
I can't remember the exact statistics. I do believe that a lot of Islam (as with many, many other religions, though, to be fair) is highly economically backwards.
Are there Sharia courts in the UK?
Not sure. If there are, they only use it to solve disputes within their own community and have no relevance to the broader population.
I suppose it's ok if they impose it to themselves,
Indeed. If only people could just live by their own cultural norms and beliefs, I believe the world would be a much happier place.
You won't ever find a set in stone definiton of what Sharia law is in the first place- it means different things to different people within the Muslim community. For example in my own perspective of Sharia law- it cannot be imposed on anyone, doesn't include things like stoning people to death(and countless other things that have no basis in what I would consider Islamic law), and has really only to do with matrimony, inheritence, amd property rights. Such as paying the women the dowry they are due when you get married. But either way its only law that is agreed upon by Muslims in the first place. It can't be forced onto people who don't believe in it.
Perhaps look at the demographic who want "Sharia" law and figure out what their background is? Is it Somalian law? Pakistani tribal law? Afghan tribal law? What laws do they really want? Just saying "Islamic" law is going to bring about quick assumptions which'll only confuse you.
Islam is very pro-property rights. I don't see it at all as being economically backwards. Then again I don't see much "Muslim" countries caring for property rights at all- but the political game has always been the same gangsterism that its always been, there aren't any morals to find here.
I don't know any Muslims who want to establish Sharia law. None zip. And I know hundreds of muslims.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
But you know collectivizing is just so easy to do. He could probably say "I know about 100 muslims that want to establish sharia law" where can the conversation go then? I think its always best to forget meaningless labels and focus on what individual actors want to do and react accordingly if they give you any personal threats.
What does it even mean for 40% of UK Muslims to want sharia law? Does that mean that one family can decide that they want blood money for a guilty party who had murdered one of their kin instead of putting them in prison? Is that really so dangerous to the UK lifestyle? I mean it just means different things to different people.
actionguy10:Islam is very pro-property rights.
They are? That's interesting.
libertyandlife:I don't know any Muslims who want to establish Sharia law. None zip. And I know hundreds of muslims.
I don't know any either, the ones I "know" are what I heard from the media.
@Evilsocialistfellow
Is it true that firearms are illegal in UK? If so, statistics mention that crime has risen because of that. I'd like to know from a citizen point of view. Has crime lowered in UK ever since guns were banned, from your angle?
auctionguy10:You won't ever find a set in stone definiton of what Sharia law is in the first place- it means different things to different people within the Muslim community. For example in my own perspective of Sharia law- it cannot be imposed on anyone, doesn't include things like stoning people to death(and countless other things that have no basis in what I would consider Islamic law), and has really only to do with matrimony, inheritence, amd property rights. Such as paying the women the dowry they are due when you get married. But either way its only law that is agreed upon by Muslims in the first place. It can't be forced onto people who don't believe in it.
I was trying to avoid making generalisations here about Sharia law since it isn't something I know a lot about and not something I want to get into. I didn't mean to imply it was in favour of stoning women to death but that from what I had read it was very pro-welfare state. Since it has religious connotations, regardless of the economic theory backing it; left wing, right wing, pro-liberty, whatever, I think it is wrong to establish it. What about the Christians, the Atheists and so forth who want the state (assuming we are talking about a state here and not anarcho-capitalism, in which case it is 100% justified for muslims to settle their disputes via sharia law if such is their want) to remain completely secular - specifically showing no bias to religion or non-religion thereof.
In regards to your second post, I apologise if I sounded antagonistic towards Islam, it was not my intent.
I know many religious Muslims too. I've simply never heard of Muslims wanting to establish sharia law from Muslims, but from non muslims. (I used to be Muslim too, I know a lot of the community, history and religious tidbits).
I don't doubt they exist, I'm simply pointing out that a lot of people (not specifically you), sort of have this double standards, expecting there to be a high population of fundamentalists from Muslims. It's sort of odd that I still find myself in the position of defending Muslims and Islam.
I was trying to avoid making generalisations here about Sharia law since it isn't something I know a lot about and not something I want to get into. I didn't mean to imply it was in favour of stoning women to death but that from what I had read it was very pro-welfare state. Since it has religious connotations, regardless of the economic theory backing it; left wing, right wing, pro-liberty, whatever, I think it is wrong to establish it. What about the Christians, the Atheists and so forth who want the state (assuming we are talking about a state here and not anarcho-capitalism, in which case it is 100% justified for muslims to settle their disputes via sharia law if such is their want) to remain completely secular - specifically showing no bias to religion or non-religion thereof. In regards to your second post, I apologise if I sounded antagonistic towards Islam, it was not my intent.
Hey no need for apologies you were just speaking from what you know. Again the thing about Sharia law is that it can mean different things to different people. I would never consider it as something that can be imposed on anyone. Even though all Muslims are required to provide charity, it certainly isn't punishable by anyone other than God if you fail to provide it. So there is really nothing to impose anyway. However, are there some people who go by the name Muslim that may went to force their beliefs on others- I wouldn't doubt it. This world is full of complexity. I just think its a bogeyman and nothing to be afraid of as a political issue.
Drew:Is it true that firearms are illegal in UK? If so, statistics mention that crime has risen because of that. I'd like to know from a citizen point of view.
You have to acquire a very specific licence and own a lot of property to acquire a shotgun or a firearm (even more so with a firearm). They aren't illegal but rules and regulations are very tight.
Despite common misconception (and many British people believe this as well - including myself not so long ago), it is legal to purchase a handgun. But if the handgun is fired, or taken onto someone's property without their consent, that is totally illegal and the handgun is regarded as a firearm for the sake of the law. *I believe* (not 100% sure) that you must also inform a local police station whennever you purchase a handgun.
Has crime lowered in UK ever since guns were banned, from your angle?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm No.
Having said that, when you compare the US and Sweden (which both have relatively liberalised firearm restrictions) with the UK, its hard to ignore that deaths by deliberate gun crimes as a percentage of the population are significantly higher than the UK. Having said that, the graph which revealed this information was biased and only accounted for something like 19 countries out of all 195 countries in the world. It is highly likely that there is no correlation whatsoever between guns per household and number of deliberate civilian deaths by firearm.
If you are asking me from a personal perspective, I have never had someone close die as a result of gunfire.
They might think the territory is theirs. I think it is not.
Is it just a matter or what people think, or is there some objective standard for finding out who's right? Libertarian property rights theory is pretty clear....and largely sides with the Palestinians.
Eugene: Double the population of Israel with 6 million hostile people, a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists? No, I definitely prefer suicide bombings. They still hate Jews, so inviting 6 million enemies into your territory is just suicide.
Double the population of Israel with 6 million hostile people, a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists? No, I definitely prefer suicide bombings. They still hate Jews, so inviting 6 million enemies into your territory is just suicide.
Ever consider why they hate Jews? Arabs and Jews used to get along a lot better than Arabs and Christians. The Muslims are the ones who let the Jews back into Jerusalem. If you perpetuate that little National Socialist racist state called Israel, and the American Imperialism that backs it, you're just going to raise tensions and eventually you will be SOL when the hammer drops. Iran isn't going to be backward forever, and Uncle Sam won't always be there to throw money and guns at you.
And while I am not about to play Joe Sobran and claim the Palestinians are little angels the amount of slaughter and oppression the Israeli government engages in makes all the 'private' terrorism pretty trivial in comparison.
You can see what happened with South African whites when they ended apartheid. They are now afraid to leave their houses. The crime in south Africa became the worst anywhere. And that is the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is that Israel opens its borders, and Palestinians will decide to take revenge and open a campaign of terror only when they inside the borders and not outside of them. Remember, Hamas doesn't just want Israel to disappear, it wants to kill all Jews. PLO might not have the same idea, but who knows? I know that both Arafat and Abu-Mazen said that they will not let a single Jew to live in Palestine. So it doesn't look good. The hatred is too deep, its a good thing there is a highly secure border that separates them and us.
Yeah, but that's what politics do: create lose-lose situations. There's often no 'good way' out except abolishing the whole thing. However, that doesn't somehow 'justify' the State engaging in the predation it does. When you oppress people they become desperate and hateful. Just like the Zionists
Correct, except I would say (with a couple notable exceptions) Arab Isalamic countries(and it ought be noted there are many many Arab Christians) and Christian relations have been unremarkable for all but the past 50 years. The European attitude to Jews through out history however is much more dubious, and it is the Middle East who has to deal with that bullshit because of that relationship.
That border wall will not keep you secure forever. There's this thing about maintaining a high level of security for an extended period of time. You develop habit's, and habit's are a weakness when dealing with a strong and determined enemy. It's only a matter of time before the revolts in the other Arab countries change the power structure to a less favorable one for Israel
I'm not Libertarian so much as an Individualist, but even I have to say that Israel is screwed. It's only a matter of time before it happens. The actions of the state have sowed the fate of the Individuals living there. Israel should have tried to make peace with Arafat when he actually started to open up to them. He was the one person that had the ability to back the bloodhound's(Hamas/Hezbollah) off the tree, and to let the racoon (Israel) out of the tree safely.
Obviously that bridge was burned, and it was quite likely that the State sponsored terrorist group from Israel did that dirty little deed.
On the original topic: Only Self-defense to point of stopping the opponent is ethical in my mind.
@Eugene
You embody my very criticism of idealism in any form, including libertarianism.
It's similar to learning kata in karate class, like I mentioned in another post. Many of these idealistic libertarians make the philosopher's flaw, as I think of it. They live in their head, thinking that reality has to conform to their schemata. The fact of the matter, though, is that it doesn't.
Someone nailed it with the Islam posting. People like Ron Paul believe that if we left Muslim countries that it would greatly reduce their hatred for us. While I agree it would slightly diminish it, Muslim countries will hate us--and all other cultures and belief systems--for the religion's duration.
You know how you can identify a libertarian idealist? Bring this point up and watch them immediately try to nullify it by comparing Islam with Christianity and Judaism.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
@ Brutus, I have to ask, have you ever been to an Islamic country? Have you ever actually had first hand experience with these people?
@Brutus
I have been to a number of Muslim countries. For example Iran. Guess what people over there think of the US?
They want to move to the US. They emulate the US in so many ways. Seriously, people are pretty desperate to get over here, considering the government doesn't give out many visas. Are they overly religious? No. You'd be shocked to learn about how big of an illegal alcohol market there is over there.
Your ignorance is showing.
I have to disagree with the general consensus on here with regards to Hiroshima. I do believe in non-aggression as a general rule and I oppose any mass bombing on civilians. But political idealogy and principles does not mean you can ignore or try and change the facts of history, it is foolish to try and condemn and dismiss Hiroshima's importance just because it does not tie in with your political viewpoint.
It is something I have studied in quite a bit of detail and it does seem to me that Hiroshima was necessary. You have to consider the context of the war in which it was dropped, it was estimated that even at this point, the number dying every single month that the war contunued was in it's hundreds of thousands. The Chinese in particular were dying in their millions at the hands of the insanse Japanese leadership. It seems to be undeniable that the bomb was the quickest way to end the war, any other method would have taken longer, inevitable leading to more deaths in the war.
And what was the alternative? It is probable that if the bomb had not have been used the US would have launched a ground invasion. Most would estimate that that would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and taken significantly longer. The mindset of the Japanese is difficult to comprehend, citizens were engineered to do everything in their power to save their country, and death was far preferable to surrender. Look what happened after their defeat at Saipan, the Japanese ordered their civilians to commit mass suicide and they complied. It really was total war and it is unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped, certainly not in the time that they did.
Ends justified the means is a cliche but I believe it is accurate here, if ever there was an example of an necessary evil then Hiroshima was it.
Biggest problem I see is the Palestinians desiring a state.
Based on the region, the middle east should be a state free zone. I don't think you'd see nearly the amount of problems.
Who do I blame? Israel, the Palestinian collective pushing for statehood, neighboring states, the U.S., etc. Pretty much any state or would-be state participating in the process.
"if the majority of people vote for a party that then goes and commits aggression, then those who voted for that party share the liability"
Really? The communist party in the Soviet Union was guilty of many, many aggressions, and every person in the Soviet Union "voted for them", because they were required to under soviet law. This makes them all guilty?
You are *assuming* that the very machinery of the state is "voluntary" when, by definition, the state itself *is aggression*. Terms like "democratically voted for them" are meaningless when one was unilaterally forced to be a participant in the state. The US government commits all sorts of aggressions and claims that in some way I am responsible for them, even though I never agreed to be a part of their state and in fact I am considered so only because my mother's vagina happened to be on some piece of land that was determined unilaterally ahead of time by them as "theirs" when I popped out of it. For that, I'm guilty of their aggressions?
Note that in the situation you laid out, *any* one who was a participant in the "democratic elections" was guilty of the crimes of the people voted in, no matter who they actually voted for.
That is some sick, sick violence.
I have to disagree with the general consensus on here with regards to Hiroshima. I do believe in non-aggression as a general rule and I oppose any mass bombing on civilians. But political idealogy and principles does not mean you can ignore or try and change the facts of history, it is foolish to try and condemn and dismiss Hiroshima's importance just because it does not tie in with your political viewpoint. It is something I have studied in quite a bit of detail and it does seem to me that Hiroshima was necessary. You have to consider the context of the war in which it was dropped, it was estimated that even at this point, the number dying every single month that the war contunued was in it's hundreds of thousands. The Chinese in particular were dying in their millions at the hands of the insanse Japanese leadership. It seems to be undeniable that the bomb was the quickest way to end the war, any other method would have taken longer, inevitable leading to more deaths in the war. And what was the alternative? It is probable that if the bomb had not have been used the US would have launched a ground invasion. Most would estimate that that would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and taken significantly longer. The mindset of the Japanese is difficult to comprehend, citizens were engineered to do everything in their power to save their country, and death was far preferable to surrender. Look what happened after their defeat at Saipan, the Japanese ordered their civilians to commit mass suicide and they complied. It really was total war and it is unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped, certainly not in the time that they did. Ends justified the means is a cliche but I believe it is accurate here, if ever there was an example of an necessary evil then Hiroshima was it.
A neocon pyschopath.
Biggest problem I see is the Palestinians desiring a state. Based on the region, the middle east should be a state free zone. I don't think you'd see nearly the amount of problems. Who do I blame? Israel, the Palestinian collective pushing for statehood, neighboring states, the U.S., etc. Pretty much any state or would-be state participating in the process.
An irrelevant sectarian.
"But I just do not see how someone can logically argue against waging war to prevent tyrannical dictators creating large scale murderous rampage."
I've always found these libertarian arguments about what the military should and shouldn't be used for to miss the mark when they start saying "Cmon, such and such was a bad guy, he had to be taken out.": yeah, probably.
But how does that justify violating the contract that the people had with the military when they agreed to fund it *only for their defense*? IOW: just because some tyrant needs to be whacked, it does not follow that it's the *government* that needs to whack him. It's like paying some security firm to put alarms on your home, and then they go off and whack Hussein and charge you for it. What? That's not what I paid you for, that's not in my contract. My contract with you is strictly immediate defense of my property. You are welcome, of course, to go whack Hussein if that's what you feel like doing, but to then charge me for it would be theft just as if I walked up to your yard, mowed your lawn, insisted you now owed me 100 bucks for doing so, and upon your nonpayment stole it from you.
If you want to do good in the wide world, however it is you define it, please do so. If it's a really good cause, you will get a lot of people to help you out. But as soon as you start demanding that others who do *not* support that cause have to participate or pay for it, you've violated the NAP.
"Also, consider Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against Kurds. Its hard for me to not succumb to foreign state intervention in certain instances."
You're committing the classic statist fallacy of assuming that anything worth doing must be done by the state.
"Biggest problem I see is the Palestinians desiring a state."
In fact, it's the concept of "states" at all that is the biggest problem. Remove this notion of "contiguous geography" from the definition of "nation", so that "nation" is just a group of people bound contractually like any other group of people, and you remove a huge percentage of the cause of wars. It's hard to have wars when there isn't contiguous geography.
"Is it just a matter or what people think, or is there some objective standard for finding out who's right? Libertarian property rights theory is pretty clear....and largely sides with the Palestinians."
Property is owned by *people*, not states. Libertarian property rights are clear: the person that owns the property is the person that *bought it*. Any other argument is a political/statist argument. No wonder they are impossible to adjudicate and end up only in wars.
Abolish the state, and then property will be only an *economic* concept, not a political one.
It comes to the question of why in wars you want to act according to the non-aggression principle. If this is because you are opposed to aggression in principle, then I'd call you naive. If this is because you think you will achieve better results by doing so then I'd have to call you clueless. Why naive? Because you simply can't win a war without hurting innocent civilians. You also can't win a war by being overcautious. According to the strict non-aggression principle you can't even kill enemy soldiers because they were drafted by force and because you can't know whether they are the aggressors or simply use a libertarian approved retaliatory force (perhaps they only retaliate against the aggression of someone from your side). Why clueless? Because about 99% of the people in the world don't care about the non-aggression principle, in most likelihood they never even heard of it. They will probably interpret your attempt to reduce civilian causalities as weakness and will use this weakness against you. For example Hamas smuggles weapons in ambulances and fires from hospital rooftops. The non-aggression principle holds when there is the possibility of due process. When it comes to power struggles between armed forces this principle can no longer be applied. Trying to apply it in such circumstances is contradictory, silly, and will lead to very bad results.
Marko: A neocon pyschopath.
Wow, great response. I am far from a neocon but hey, if you want to believe that, even in a war in which about 60 million had already died, non aggression will always solve everything than go ahead.
Ok, my question wasn't really about WWII specifically but just wars in general. I can't understand this whole 'wars aren't necessary to wade off fascist dictatorships' stance. What about Sadam Hussein and Kuwait? Was it wrong for countries in the Coalition of the Willing to help defend Kuwait, which is comparitively a smaller country?
You can not be taken seriously when you demonstrate your ignorance like this. Kuwait was 1990-91. The Coalition of the Willing was 2003. First learn things, then get an opinion.
You are clueless about libertarianism and are dreaming up problems that do not exist in fact so as to be able to "justify" the despicable things you support.
Oh sorry. All you would-murder-tens-of-thousands-of-children-in-a-hellish-inferno types look all the same to me. What should I have called you then? A Nazi? Communist? Anti-Christ?
Which sect is that?
There is no such thing as "defenssive war". In all human history, none (at least to my humble knowledge). I am talking here from libertarian perspective. State murderes (soldiers) can not defend its citizens by killing innocent people (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example). It's like NAP 101. Especially with atomic bombs which DO NOT CHOOSE who is guilty of crime and who is not. It is impossible to distinguish in such scales, so one must be insane to call mass murderers commited by US soldiers in 1945 "a deffensive war". That is just insane.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Marko: Wow, great response. I am far from a neocon but hey, if you want to believe that, even in a war in which about 60 million had already died, non aggression will always solve everything than go ahead. Oh sorry. All you would-murder-tens-of-thousands-of-children-in-a-hellish-inferno types look all the same to me. What should I have called you then? A Nazi? Communist? Anti-Christ?
Christ, did you read my post? Why do people struggle with the fact that if the bomb had not been dropped more lives would have been lost. By arguing against it you are saying that the hundreds of thousands who were dying in China, Vietnam, etc. and the hundreds of thousands that would have been lost in an American invasion is preferable! Come on, let's be objective here and look at the facts. As for your question I'd prefer it if you didnt impose a petty label on me based on one post thanks.
Bronco: Christ, did you read my post? Why do people struggle with the fact that if the bomb had not been dropped more lives would have been lost.
Christ, did you read my post? Why do people struggle with the fact that if the bomb had not been dropped more lives would have been lost.
Lemme ask. How do you CALCULATE? Or is it some kind pseudoutilitarian philosohpy, to kill thousands in order to save (questionable) millions? As if there was only one answer, either war or surrender. That's statist myth, propagandised for hundreds of years.
"Lemme ask. How do you CALCULATE? Or is it some kind pseudoutilitarian philosohpy, to kill thousands in order to save (questionable) millions? As if there was only one answer, either war or surrender."
This is exactly right: the claim that these are the only two options is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. On top of that is the fallacy of the 100% accurate prediction: you *never* know exactly what is going to happen in the future. This is what is wrong with all of those stupid scenarios like "if you knew that a terrorist had hidden a nuclear bomb in the city and a million people were going to die if you don't find out where it is in time, isn't torture justified?" Well, no, it's not, at least not in any structural way*: because you can't ever "know" that. A terrorist may tell you that he has hidden a nuclear bomb, but you'll never know for sure if he really did, or if he built it correctly, or if it's really just an M-80, etc.
*: my "caveat" on this is that I might *personally* choose to torture someone in this circumstance if, say, my family were at risk. But if I did, I would fully expect to be prosecuted and convicted as a torturer; I might deem that a cost worth paying for what I percieve to be the lives of my family. In the end, "law" -whether it is decided and implemented by a monopoly (guhvment) or a free market - is still just a "cost" to the offender. There are times when someone might well choose to pay that cost. But that's a much different statement that saying that in some circumstances, *there shouldn't be a cost*.
MaikU: Lemme ask. How do you CALCULATE? Or is it some kind pseudoutilitarian philosohpy, to kill thousands in order to save (questionable) millions? As if there was only one answer, either war or surrender. That's statist myth, propagandised for hundreds of years.
Well, it is thought that about 200,000-300,000 were dying in Asia alone every single month in 1945. Obviously we cant know for sure how long the war would have raged but it would have been a great deal longer had the bomb not been used. And then consider the inevitable alternative; a US invasion. Estimates would say that would have led to up to a million deaths, it probably wouldnt have been that high but it would be close, due to the nature of the war with Japan. Surely the bomb is therefore the preferable alternative?
What do you suggest the US should have done then? Just do nothing? I suppose that perhaps the Soviets would have defeated Japan but, again, at a greater cost of lives. So go on then, if all this is just a Statist myth, what would have been a preferable alternative to the bomb?
"And then consider the inevitable alternative; a US invasion"
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Alternatives Considered: "And then consider the inevitable alternative; a US invasion" I do not think that word means what you think it does.
I mean it in the sense that, rightly or wrongly, that is what the US would have done thus making it the inevitable alternative
The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose – unemployment, automation, Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever – the SLP simply repeats, parrot-like: "Adopt socialism." Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes. On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state. Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.
The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose – unemployment, automation, Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever – the SLP simply repeats, parrot-like: "Adopt socialism." Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes.
On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state.
Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.