Subject:
|
Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
185 times
|
| |
|
|
A survey was held recently, I got the email about it and participated, but
it was intended for LP members only, so I didn't mention it here. I found
the results rather interesting. Totally unscientific as it was self selected
whether to participate, and some non libertarians may have taken it.
I thought it would be interesting since we are engaged in moral debate on
this topic, so here is the analysis of the results by the LP.
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=541
I think it's interesting that most respondents see the attack as force
initiation and that we need to seek justice, but most respondents also feel
that our interventionist foreign policy is a contributing factor in the past
and would be in future if continued.
None of that should be a surprise but I am reassured the survey came out
that way since it is always nice to actually say accurate things about one's
group.
Where there is some big division is on the "nation building thing"
Quoting
* 54.8% support American efforts to topple Afghanistan's Taliban government
and replace it with a less repressive government that doesn't support
terrorism. (33.4% strongly; 21.4% somewhat). Another 30.2% oppose such a
plan. (16.7% strongly; 13.5% somewhat).
* 52.9% support future U.S. military action against any nation that supports
or endorses terrorism. (28.9% strongly; 23.0% somewhat). Another 30.5%
oppose such an open-ended military policy. (16.0% strongly; 14.5% somewhat).
Fully 17.5% were undecided or gave no answer.
* 46.4% endorse American support for the Northern Alliance or other groups
that are fighting to topple the Taliban government. (20.6% strongly; 25.8%
somewhat). Another 34.2% oppose such a policy. (18.0% strongly; 16.2%
somewhat). Again, a large number -- 19.2% -- were undecided or gave no answer.
Those last three questions indicate that Libertarians are unwilling to give
the U.S. government carte blanche to engage in limitless military action in
the name of fighting terrorism, said Dasbach.
end quote.
You guys know I've started to shift my opinion lately on nation building,
seeing it as a necessary part of winning a war... not everyone in the survey
agrees, obviously. I'm not sure I do either unless it's well thought out,
but I do see it needed here in Afghanistan (and Iraq...) unless we want the
same disease back again.
One thing I think we've not touched on at all is the notion of declaration
of war. We here have talked about the Barbary Pirates and letters of Marque
and Reprisal but not on the fact that we have not in this instance formally
"declared war" (the process, involving Congress). That's not a good thing I
don't think. Mere rhetoric about this being a war should not replace the
part Congress should play in this. The survey shows most survey takers agree.
How do others feel about that? Should we have a Declaration of War?
Next is the internal civil liberties fallout and here again the results are
as expected, we libertarians (again, unscientific!!!) are not willing to
grant government carte blanche to use any possible weapon they can dream up
against terrorism regardless of implications.
Quoting again:
"In most cases, by substantial majorities, poll-takers clearly refused to
give up more civil liberties so the government could fight the War On
Terrorism," he said. "However, in areas like immigration control and
detention of legal immigrants, a significant minority were apparently
willing to consider proposals they thought might prevent future terrorist
attacks."
end quote
That last part makes me nervous... we're supposed to be in favor of open
immigration.
Also a final note, there apparently is a bug in the php code as the last
line of the press release (if you view it on site) is clipped off. It should
read (quoting from my mailed copy):
"Another 12.0% disagree with that proposal, while
10.5% were undecided or gave no answer."
instead of
"Another 12.0% disagree wi"
Note that in a separate press release the LP has come out against the
PATRIOT act (and the similar USA act) which contain the same tired old
provisions already separately shot down:
- Know your Customer which requires banks to spy
- Sneak and Peek which allows pre warrant sneak searches
- Carnivore which snoops on everyone's mail.
I will have to start putting some terrorist keywords in my signature, I
guess, as an act of civil obfuscation. (it's not exactly disobedience, I
don't think)...
I think it's tiresome that we already said no to these and they're back
again. Politicians will use any excuse to usurp.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
7 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
