Glenn Beck: Operation Defeat Lindsey Graham

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/08/operation-defeat-lindsey-graham/

 

[TaftFan]

My redstate post had to do with this: http://www.redstate.com/electconsti...-wrong-on-libertarianism-should-be-primaried/

 

[Christian Liberty]

The main thing I disagreed with in that article, TaftFan, is your thing on foreign policy. If simply having a nuke is an act of aggression, than the United States is even more of an aggressor than I already believe it to be. Anyone who thinks Iran just building a nuke is an act of aggression that justifies war ain't a libertarian.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The main thing I disagreed with in that article, TaftFan, is your thing on foreign policy. If simply having a nuke is an act of aggression, than the United States is even more of an aggressor than I already believe it to be. Anyone who thinks Iran just building a nuke is an act of aggression that justifies war ain't a libertarian.

Would you have let Germany achieve nukes?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Would you have let Germany achieve nukes?

Would you have let the U.S. achieve nukes?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Would you have let Germany achieve nukes?

At what point?

 

[TaftFan]

The main thing I disagreed with in that article, TaftFan, is your thing on foreign policy. If simply having a nuke is an act of aggression, than the United States is even more of an aggressor than I already believe it to be. Anyone who thinks Iran just building a nuke is an act of aggression that justifies war ain't a libertarian.

Keep in mind I am writing on Redstate.

But my main point wasn't so much the nuke itself, it was whether Iran's posturing constitutes aggression. The line to draw for imminent threats is somewhere.

There is a sharp disagreement between the Rothbardian and (Ayn)Rand wing on Iran right now.

I stated both views without taking a position. Once people get opened up to libertarianism they can decide for themselves and that was the goal of the article. And also to promote getting rid of Graham.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Keep in mind I am writing on Redstate.

But my main point wasn't so much the nuke itself, it was whether Iran's posturing constitutes aggression. The line to draw for imminent threats is somewhere.

There is a sharp disagreement between the Rothbardian and Rand wing on Iran right now.

I stated both views without taking a position. Once people get opened up to libertarianism they can decide for themselves and that was the goal of the article. And also to promote getting rid of Graham.

Fair enough on where you're posting, but still, foreign policy is pretty much a dealbreaker, at least for me.

I've said I don't really consider Rand a libertarian either, more of a constitutional conservative. I'd vote for him, but he doesn't support my philosphy, unless he's lying a lot more often than I think he is.

I'm not a Rothbardian anarchist either but I support a pure non-interventionist foreign policy.

I'm also not a purist "If you get one thing wrong you aren't a libertarian" type. There are a lot of issues (Abortion, death penalty, intellectual property, anarchism vs minarchism, exc.) and even on stuff that's clear cut from a libertarian POV, I usually wouldn't tell someone they weren't a libertarian over a minor issue. Foreign policy isn't a minor issue though. Its the lynchpin. War is the health of the state. War is where the state finds all of its powers. I'm not saying you're not a libertarian if you hold the wrong view on IP or punishment theory. I'm saying you're not a libertarian if you support preemptive war.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

At what point?

Anytime after 1939.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

One thing is for sure; we're all going to have to be on the same page pushing in the right direction to unseat Graham. If there's infighting the fellowship fails.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If it were pre-Pearl Harbor I would have tried harder to stay neutral rather than actually getting entangled by boycotting the Axis and trading exclusively with the allies. I'm consistently non-interventionist unless we are attacked, but Soviet Russia was just as aggressive as the Nazis at the time. There was no special reason we needed to take the Allied side. Granted, Britain and France were clearly "Better" than Germany and Japan, but I still support staying out of wars. So if Germany had been developing a nuke before we went to war with them, I would have stayed out of it just like with anything else. I think if we had traded equally with both sides rather than boycotting the Axis side Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened.

On the other hand, if we're talking after Pearl Harbor (Note: saying "If we didn't do X, Y would not have happened" is not the same thing as saying tht Y was our fault. I can state that there was a motivation for a given action while still saying it ain't justified) at that point we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war. We had a right to defend ourselves against their aggression. So now the question of "Do we let Germany have a nuke" is pointless, we're already at war with them through no direct choice of our own. Of course we don't let a nation that actually is trying to kill us and is the aggressor have nukes.

In the Middle East, of course, America is the aggressor. Iran has never attacked us. So we have no right to do anything to stop them from getting nukes. You don't have to like the idea, heck I don't like that the horrifying things exist, but you don't have the right to use force to stop them.

 

[TaftFan]

Fair enough on where you're posting, but still, foreign policy is pretty much a dealbreaker, at least for me.

I've said I don't really consider Rand a libertarian either, more of a constitutional conservative. I'd vote for him, but he doesn't support my philosphy, unless he's lying a lot more often than I think he is.

I'm not a Rothbardian anarchist either but I support a pure non-interventionist foreign policy.

I'm also not a purist "If you get one thing wrong you aren't a libertarian" type. There are a lot of issues (Abortion, death penalty, intellectual property, anarchism vs minarchism, exc.) and even on stuff that's clear cut from a libertarian POV, I usually wouldn't tell someone they weren't a libertarian over a minor issue. Foreign policy isn't a minor issue though. Its the lynchpin. War is the health of the state. War is where the state finds all of its powers. I'm not saying you're not a libertarian if you hold the wrong view on IP or punishment theory. I'm saying you're not a libertarian if you support preemptive war.

btw, I revised by post to say Ayn Rand

I think Rand Paul is between Ayn and Rothbard on the issue

 

[T.hill]

Fair enough on where you're posting, but still, foreign policy is pretty much a dealbreaker, at least for me.

I've said I don't really consider Rand a libertarian either, more of a constitutional conservative. I'd vote for him, but he doesn't support my philosphy, unless he's lying a lot more often than I think he is.

I'm not a Rothbardian anarchist either but I support a pure non-interventionist foreign policy.



I'm also not a purist "If you get one thing wrong you aren't a libertarian" type. There are a lot of issues (Abortion, death penalty, intellectual property, anarchism vs minarchism, exc.) and even on stuff that's clear cut from a libertarian POV, I usually wouldn't tell someone they weren't a libertarian over a minor issue. Foreign policy isn't a minor issue though. Its the lynchpin. War is the health of the state. War is where the state finds all of its powers. I'm not saying you're not a libertarian if you hold the wrong view on IP or punishment theory. I'm saying you're not a libertarian if you support preemptive war.

it
What really is the difference between a 'libertarian' and a 'constitutional-conservative'? If there really is any difference I would assume it's very minuscule.

 

[itshappening]

Davis needs to make up his mind and quickly. He should have done so ages ago and decided to run. I don't know what he's thinking.

We cannot have Davis and Bright splitting the vote and attention for the anti-Graham forces. Lindsey would love that as it will ensure his victory in a split field.

 

[itshappening]

Oh dear. Beck wants Alen West to move to SC and run for the seat.

As I said Davis needs to announce soon or we need to start pushing Bright and not let Beck muscle in on this