To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.fidonet.org, bam 
Subject: Re: Bombing Iraq? Maybe a good idea...


> From: ZAPTCS@aol.com
> 
> In a message dated 2/21/98 5:47:55 AM, you wrote:
> 
> >I believe that the current administration constitutes a credible,
> >substantial threat against my life and liberty.  When do we respond
> >militarily?
> >
> >Eric Garris
> =============================
> As I pointed out in another message, the moral authority to use force says
> nothing about whether or not it's wise to do so!
> 
> TCS

I fully agree with Eric that "the the current administration constitutes a credible, substantial threat against my life and liberty." Further, I would agree that the "tyrannies" of the ruling class today are in many ways worse than those of King George III, Lord North, and the Parliament they led. The American colonists were thus fully justified in raising arms against "taxation without representation".

However, today's Libertarians have not (yet) exhausted the remedies provided by a Constitution that was crafted, largely by those who had recently thrown off the tyrant's yoke, in order to prevent a recurrence of same (and which more or less did so for a century).

Today, we cannot claim "taxation without representation" because it is those very "representatives" who tax and oppress us. Ballot access hurdles notwithstanding, we cannot claim "disenfranchisement"; indeed the universal franchise is the root of the majoritarian rule which seems to have no limits on its power. Nor can we claim inability to protest and petition for redress of grievances"; protest is the mainstay of today's political movements, abetted gleefully by the new fourth branch of government, i.e. "the media".

Sure, we activists may weep that statists have make it very difficult, by obstructing our ballot access, overturning referenda and term limits, etc. However, mere "difficulty" will never be a sufficient excuse for not *exhausting* all available remedies. That is precisely why I am an LP member and political activist, rather than a "rebel" soldier.

OTOH...

The situation caused by Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" is in no way comparable, because there simply are no credible "remedies" available for us (the treatened) to try before resorting to force (in response to the attempted compulsion already initiated by the Iraqi government). There are simply no "remedies" to exhaust!

Remedies such as a "Constitution" (PLEASE don't make me laugh by propsing the UN charter as an analog), courts with effective jurisdiction, petition for redress of grievances, a ballot box, or even a set of effective punitive "sanctions" simply do not exist in the context of the Iraqi stockpiles of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons.

Thus, the comparison fails.

IMO...

Regardless of the above justifications, and despite my rejection of Eric's comparison, I have mixed feelings about the proper response to this threat.

I insist it IS a threat of force against me, which can justify a forceful response. But the fact that a course of action may be justified does not suffice to make it the wisest, most prudent, or unequivocal choice.

Sorry to be so inconclusive, but I sense that most libertarians view this situation as a dilemma. Hence all the "cop-outs", e.g. "we don't know all the facts", "we can't trust the US government's story", etc.) Some questions just don't have easy answers and, as Andre Marrou loved to say, "Libertopia is not an option".

CONTRACTS??

A weak additional point in support of forceful response is the fact that the destruction and inspection was contracted for by the cease-fire agreement that ended the war seven years ago. IMO, the past and current administrations are at fault for withdrawing military presence before the cease-fire agreement terms had been fully enforced and tested. Doing nothing at all would have been an option, but starting something and then dropping out before its conclusion is the worst possible choice.

BOUNTIES?

The best suggestion I have seen recently is Harry Browne's -- including a mega-bounty for the successful mercenary.

I'd always argued that Desert Storm was mostly OK -- except that it should have been led by Mr. Scwartzkopf, as the corporate Vice President for Operations of a private business acting as the agent of the victims (e.g. Kuwaitis whose property was stolen), privately funded by donations, without any official role for any government. I also felt that in 1991, the United States government should have declared Saddam Hussein and his agents to be literally "outlaws", so that no person could ever be tried in a U.S. court for any actions taken against them or their property.

An LP position on the appropriate response (to the Iraqi threat) is LPUS business, I suppose, but much of the arguments can veer easily off-topic, so I'd better stop here.

In Liberty,
Bruce A. Martin