Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Would libertarians have gone to war against Hitler?
I was pondering this thought today and I think not. The fact that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust would have been deemed an internal affair by the libertarian/isolationist mind and in this thought experiment I have to kind of leave out Japan and Pearl Harbor since even Ron Paul I believe would go to war if our country were directly attacked. What's up with China and Russia these days, are they some sort of evil Axis or something? Maybe there's some truth to the various evangelical/ultra-traditional Catholic apocalyptic scenarios that they're gonna be two very heavy players in the End Times and not in a good way. Syria's Bashar al-Assad continues to kill innocent Syrian anti-government protesters practically on a daily basis now, the UN finally gets some gumption to at least condemn his tyranny and to call for regime change but China and Russia shoot it down by exercising their vetoes. In fact some Russian minister explained the decision by saying the proposed UN resolution amounts to a call for regime change, well DUH!!! The guy's a despot and mass murderer in the best mold and then President Obama who has finally gotten somewhat heated over the situation says a military option is off the table. That would be grudgingly respectable had he not gone after Col. Moammar Khadafy but consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds as they say. I do agree with Ron Paul on a number of things, turns out the Bunny Ranch in Nevada is enthusiastically supporting his candidacy because he's for states' rights and has said you can't legislate virtue. I'm not so sure if I'd want the 'hos and potheads behind me though but he's ultimately unelectable imo and I believe that is due to his extreme isolationism and the Hitler question proposed at the top there would be an excellent excellent question to pose to him in debate again leaving out the whole Hirohito angle and truthfully I don't think the Jewish issue was why we went to war in the first place. Hitler did in fact pose a grave threat to the entire world if you understand your History but the salient point here is even if a libertarian were to say it was right to go to war against Germany the Jews would not enter into the equation and that's what I'm getting at which brings up the whole other issue of anti-Semitism. Apartheid in South Africa and the government killing of anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, was that our concern too? Rwanda? Yes for me at least but a libertarian is apt to say no so that brings up that whole other can of worms regarding Race. I'll let soapie sort out the fine print, I'm only posing the Questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Funny you should bring up Hitler. If you read Mein Kampf (down the hall in the bathroom bookcase, heavily annotated by yours truly), he spelled it all out in black and white, exactly his plan and what he was going to do.
ReplyDeletePeople laughed their asses off at him and said it could never happen.
Do you want me to launch into my Christian Dominionism rant again?
There is a loud portion of the Christian Right who would like to create the equivalent of the Taliban (minus the Quran and the burkhas) in this country.
People laugh because they think they're just a crazy fringe group who will never get anywhere.
The truth is that they ARE getting places, and that the rest of the moderate Christians are sitting back and letting it happen, because they agree to some point with the changes being made.
It's a frightening proposition, but it's happening every day.
I just came across a great quote from Kingsley Amis: "There's little point in writing if you can't annoy somebody", in this case the soapster. Now I know there are too many wars going on at the moment or that have gone on, we can't afford them all but let's put that aside and say that if we had nothing going on at the moment, we had huge surpluses instead of deficits and debts, young folks enlisting left and right WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG ANYWAY with helping people like the Syrians who are suffering under the yoke of a cruel tyranny? Answer that soapster. Seems libertarianism means every man is an island, kind of depressing if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteYou want to go to war then go to war. Just have the courtesy to get a congressional declaration. Now if you'll excuse me I have to do some last minute preparations for this evening's caucus.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is of course that the German population didn't rise up because everything happened systematically and incrementally. All the while they thought they were free just as the mass of people think they too are free today. The similarities between the US and Germany before the war are eerily similar.
ReplyDelete"Seems libertarianism means every man is an island, kind of depressing if you ask me...
ReplyDeleteSuch sentiment illustrates the layman's inability to read or understand free markets. The largest advocates of free markets are libertarians. We've built up a statewide network of our own. Pretty impressive for a bunch of rugged individualists I'd say.
<--has such a blog crush on Soap.
ReplyDelete"...but consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds as they say..."
ReplyDeleteNo. Actually RWE wrote "A FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Big difference.
soapster said...
ReplyDeleteYou want to go to war then go to war. Just have the courtesy to get a congressional declaration.
How about going to Congress for a Declaration of War like the Constitution requires?
I wouldn't call it a courtesy.
I'm not a pacifist and I'm not a hawk. George W. Bush not my type but I still want an answer. Let me play around with my little thought experiment: let's say Hitler or a modern-day Hitler did not pose a direct threat to US but you still have the 6 million Jews to consider. Would today's libertarians like Ron Paul advocate going to war to prevent a genocide in this case the Jews? an invasion to close the concentration camps? A simple answer would suffice and a no response would point to an extreme isolationism unbefitting presidential character.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me to ask: if not for Pearl Harbor, would we have gone to war?
ReplyDeleteRE: "A simple answer would suffice and a no response would point.." The short answer is no ..IMO, the
ReplyDeletelibertarian view is the nation
must defend itself only if attacked. But, then again, not
all libertarians are in lockstep
(they ARE libertarians after all)
and there is probably differing
opinion in the group. This is
a 'twofer', as Saty's Pearl Harbor was a direct attack, libertarians
would be for defending ourselves.
Interestingly, the congressional declaration of war on Japan was
not quite unanimous ..
Your entire question and what you are suggesting is a bit absurd. Namely because it presumes that Hitler's rise to power would have played out similarly regardless of a libertarian body excercising political power and influence in a historical context. Had such a body held political sway in this country, any number of things could have occured differently thus changing the course of history.
ReplyDelete^Cop out answer.
ReplyDeletebtw, Z-man, you a Giants fan? If so, congrats on your Super Bowl win!
ReplyDeleteIt's not a cop out answer in as much as it's a baited and loaded question. Things are the way they are or were the way they were because of human action Beth. People are not chess pieces on a board. It is therefore absurd to suggest that by changing the people and players, in a historical context that is, that they would move similarly on the world's board.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said Beth I watch far more baseball than football but watched a good part of the Super Bowl anyway and it was a damn good game. Could have gone either way right up to the last second and two fine quarterbacks. Eli Manning can really thread the needle. Madonna's half-time show wasn't bad either.
ReplyDeleteHey, I just had another thought and another question.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bachmann was running, the media made a big deal about her having migraines and wouldn't her migraines potentially interfere with her having to make bigass serious life and death of millions of people decisions.
But how come nobody's mentioned the bipolar situation in Newt's family, or the fact that bipolar DOES run in families, or the fact that his behavior over the years is practically a textbook description of it. Including all the affairs and so on.
Didn't know this about Newt. My own opinion was that he comes across as too abrasive and belligerent too much of the time when it ain't even called for. Hey what's good for the goose...
ReplyDeleteHis mother is bipolar. He has been real open about it. I'm just surprised... Fox had a psychologist claim that his serial infidelity somehow translates into making him a great president, but meanwhile his whole life story reads like Bipolar 101, and nobody's breathed one word about it, on either side of the fence.
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with that?
You seem to have a thing about the mind, about people who may not be whole owing to genetics, a family tree, whatever entering into politics. Mental illness is still such a social stigma, you seem to reinforce it through some of your negative political comments here but that doesn't mean Newt has it just 'cause his Mom did. If he does have it isn't a little compassion in order? maybe if he were a liberal no?
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm pointing out is that Michelle Bachmann underwent serious scrutiny and questions about her viability as a president because she had migraines. People actually questioning whether she was competent to be president because of migraines.
ReplyDeleteBut here's Gingrich, who reads like a classic textbook description of bipolar 1, has it in his family, and no one has mentioned it.
Not a conservative, not a liberal. Not a one of them on either side has mentioned it.
So why does Bachmann get grilled and he doesn't?
All he gets is a Fox psychologist trying to tell people that serial infidelity (hallmark of bpd btw) will make him a great president.
If anything it looks mighty sexist to me.
And mental illness is a huge stigma, yes, I know this first hand, but on the other side, if you have severe epilepsy should you really be behind the wheel of a schoolbus? Or if you have massive cardiac problems should you be planning to run the Boston Marathon? Some things do get in the way of other things.
I'm just sayin.
The Bachmann Treatment I chalk up to sexism too and so do some political commentators. It's a tricky subject and John McCain was a POW for five years but most folks would probably say he did OK and you already know my feeling on bipolar bosses, hell to work with.
ReplyDelete