[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin22.html
"To the Editor:
This laudatory letter is a response to Randy Barnett�??s op-ed of Tuesday, July 17, in which he limns a brilliant vindication of the mass killing of Iraqi civilians. He has done us pro-murder libertarians a great service by reclaiming the movement from the radical flapdoodle pacifists who doggedly insist upon what they have labeled a “non-aggression axiom.” This incoherent moral law essentially proclaims that violence committed against innocent people is wrong."
"And now we come to the extremely un-libertarian Ron Paul. Paul believes in limited government and consistently votes against increases in federal power. This is a slap in the face to all good libertarians, e.g. Randy Barnett. Without a police state and strong military, how in the world is the government going to impose libertarianism?
So as we see, Paul is simply another in a long line of so-called libertarians who have espoused the rhetoric of limited government and personal liberty, while at the same time professing to be against murder, rape, and theft. "
This post by Randy Barnett is likely at least partially in response to reactions such as the above:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184891247
Do read the whole thing, which is interesting. Here’s the lede:
[i]Antiwar Libertarians and the Reification of the State: I hesitated writing my WSJ op-ed, Libertarians and the War because I knew it would provoke a strong reaction from antiwar libertarians, many of whom have been my friends and colleagues for a very long time. That it did. Therefore, I am grateful for the many emails and blog posts thanking me for pointing out that some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul’s stance on the war. But I am even more grateful to the many antiwar libertarians who avoided personal attacks and leveled their critique at what they perceived to be my argument rather than against me personally. And I am pleased that very few read my op-ed as an “attack” on antiwar libertarians generally or Ron Paul in particular. To the contrary, one cannot claim as I did that reasonable libertarians can disagree about the Iraq war and, at the same time, dismiss all antiwar libertarians as unreasonable. And I went to some lengths to specify areas of agreement shared by both libertarian supporters and opponents of the Iraq war.
Where most antiwar critics of my op-ed have gone wrong, however, is in asserting that I was attempting to refute their antiwar stance or was offering a defense of the Iraq war on libertarian grounds. That would have been difficult enough to do in a 1400 word op-ed; but was impossible in the 215 words I devoted to why some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul. It should be no surprise, therefore, that they found these 215 words unpersuasive. My sole aim in my op-ed was to inform readers that they should not assume that Ron Paul speaks for all libertarians because it is an undeniable fact that he does not. I have the emails and blog posts to prove it empirically![/i][/quote]
What was he trying to say then?
He (the author) does not defend the Iraq war and Ron Paul is not anti war per-se, so what is his point?
That some libertarians might be pro-war under some conditions?
Well, um, yes?