Cross-posted at The Conjecturer.
Defense
- Could the shakeup at JCS be an indication of a possibly positive move toward skepticism on Iraq? Possibly. I’m more intrigued with putting two Navy guys in charge of our insurgency campaigns—what kind of insight might they bring a more traditional land warrior cannot?
- Then again, the DoD does have a habit of doing things like funding what can only be called The
ManhattanChelsea Project. - Why keep Nicholas Burns around? Because gratuitous, groundless accusations that Iran is arming the Taliban said in the context of Iraq is totally productive.
- The EA-6B Prowler, the Navy’s electronics countermeasures workhorse, has been running anti-IED duty the last few years. I’m glad it’s been more successful than other ideas. It’s also worth noting: the A-6 airframe has been in use since the early days of Vietnam. Though old, it is highly effective, and new uses are being found for it. Kinda makes you wonder why we keep needing $100 billion new airframes.
- Or, come to think of it, magical impossible non-nuclear ICBMs.
- Craziness over the CSAR-X program, with the Air Force making puzzling decisions and no one really knowing what they want or how much they want to pay for it. Just another Manic Monday, I suppose, even if it’s Tuesday.
Around the World
- Last month, we learned that Nigeria’s corruption has cost the troubled, impoverished nation over $380 billion. This month, however, is a much more reasoned look at why corruption arises, and what it might actually mean. More here.
- Japan hates immigrants so much, it’s making its grandmothers work longer. Maybe Tom Tancredo should move.
- Sure communism was brutal and murdered almost 100 million people last century, but it made the trains run on time, and you got free healthcare. That book, which is a history of communism, deeply interests me. Only, I worry it is about as depressing as Anne Applebaum’s Gulag, which I still cannot read for any length of time without tearing up.
- An excellent look at the soft power maneuvering of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Gary Kasparov managed to avoid another beating and imprisonment at an opposition rally. Siberian Light has some more crazy links from around Russia.
- Bad communication and what I’ve come to see as an over-reliance on air strikes have resulted in seven friendlies killed just south of Kabul, Afghanistan. It is all part of a larger picture of mismatched munitions and sloppy strategy. Meanwhile, David Axe reports that road construction has turned into the latest priority for PRTs.
- Child labor in the fields of Uzbekistan.
Back at Home
- The 4th Circuit Court has ruled that President Bush cannot hold legal residents indefinitely without charging them, even if his administration claims he is somehow an “enemy combatant.” Let’s say it all together: FINALLY. We are made stronger through due process, not weaker. Odious as Islamists are, if they cannot have a definitive legal case built against them, they probably haven’t committed a crime, and therefore don’t deserve incarceration. And if they have committed a crime but the government cannot prove it, then it needs to do a better job of proving it, without throwing any old suspect into prison for six years in blatant violation of habeas corpus.
- It’s not just the Bush administration that hates your freedom. AT&T hates your freedom, too. And why do cops seem to think, nearly across the board, that they are above the law? Or that their actions are not subject to scrutiny by their employers (i.e. taxpayers)?
- An interesting look inside the fundamental Libertarian incoherence on all matters military: in a post mentioning the rescue of several U.S. soldiers in Iraq by PMCs, the commenters seem split between “privatize the military,” “they are just mercenaries,” and “they are overpaid mercenaries” (emphasis mine). The idea of a Libertarian complaining about overpayment is deeply amusing—such a thing should be impossible to them, as people are paid what others are willing to pay. The calls to privatize the military mixed in with deep disgust at the idea of private soldiers for profit is similarly amusing: isn’t self-interest—which includes working for profit—the height of Libertarian morality? This is why, despite my preference for libertarian (note the small-l) philosophy, I do not subscribe to it as a controlling philosophy. There is too much willful denial of reality involved.
- Albanians stole President Bush’s watch! Maybe they can give it to the Uyghurs he falsely imprisoned for five years then deported to a dirty refugee camp outside Tirana. And, just for flavor: LOLz iPhone liberals!!!1!
- Also, John Ashcroft H8s Ur Kidz, lulz.
An interesting look inside the fundamental Libertarian incoherence on all matters military: in a post mentioning the rescue of several U.S. soldiers in Iraq by PMCs, the commenters seem split between “privatize the military,” “they are just mercenaries,” and “they are overpaid mercenaries” (emphasis mine). The idea of a Libertarian complaining about overpayment is deeply amusing—such a thing should be impossible to them, as people are paid what others are willing to pay. The calls to privatize the military mixed in with deep disgust at the idea of private soldiers for profit is similarly amusing: isn’t self-interest—which includes working for profit—the height of Libertarian morality? This is why, despite my preference for libertarian (note the small-l) philosophy, I do not subscribe to it as a controlling philosophy. There is too much willful denial of reality involved.
Generally, if somebody wants to privatize the military, they would be considered an anarchist, rather than a Libertarian. According to Libertarianism, the one purpose of government is to protect the people within it’s borders against force and fraud. Sometimes, this requires sending an army outside the borders. In the case of Afghanistan, this was required. In the case of Iraq, it was not.
I very much agree with you. I am not a fan of the anarcho-libertarians.
Having a preference toward libertarian philosophy is at least admirable.
Well, at least anarcho-libertarians – despite facing many questions of reasonable pragmatism – do have a tendency to stick to their guns.
And that is also at least admirable.
Much more so than the soi-disant libertarians that feel they must distinguish themselves apart by adding the prefixing neo that gives them, in their mind, gross latitude to redefine libertarian philosophy.
Ohhhh… Look what I’ve gone and done. I’ve gone and ranted all over your nice post. My most humble apologies.
It must have been something I ate.
Cheers.
I’d probably object if I disagreed. As it is, take note of my otherwise stony silence.
I will agree Pogue some people referred to as neo, or self referenced as neo, certainly fall under that rubric. However, since we are put in such a category I will point out that 2, 3,4 and 5 certainly do not apply to my version. I certainly consider you a neo and welcome you in my tent despite our disagreements on some issues:^)
I would also suggest that #1 has as much to do with Democrats not qualifying under any of the traditional libertarian monikers either, nor do they wish seem to wish to. In fact, libertarians would be guilty of 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 at a minimum for quite some time. In fact, #4 is part of my reason for being a neo if a neo I am.
On Number 1, I can see some Democrats as preferable to many Republicans, but not anything close to a libertarian. I however see some Republicans who actually can qualify under a libertarian tent, neo or otherwise. Maybe some Democratic politicians and activists will eventually fashion a philosophy that is broadly neo enough, yet still within the Democratic party tradition to be allowed under our tent. Some libertarians even seem to be making the effort, I encourage them.
At this point though, if libertarians are a minuscule influence (though the Democrats are constantly whining about the baleful influence of libertarians and their radical policy ideas) on Republicans, the influence amongst the Democrats is approaching the vanishing point. On this, most Democrats I talk to seem to feel that is the way it should be. We are the most radical of right wingers in their eyes, with the sole virtue of many of us being isolationist. Hopefully Ron Paul’s little celebrity will open their eyes to the merits of some of his other points as well. As I said, I welcome the move should it occur.
Didn’t we just have a long discussion about, while they may be wrong, the claims anything “groundless”?
I would think that right there would throw out any descriptions of the claims as “groundless” I fully concede that it’s possible they are wrong, but I just don’t know you can say groundless unless you’re just more interested in being right than finding the truth.
We had a discussion that it isn’t definitive, and I have yet to see any evidence beyond “we found weapons that were originally designed by Iran.” Simply spewing that out during a long rant about Iraq sounds more like poisoning the well than making any kind of argument.
Make love, not war! I for one encourage our military leaders in their search for ridiculous sounding non-lethal techniques. What if it worked? We could transform Iraq. Of course, James Dobson might not visit, and I am certainly looking for more places he might leave the US to go to, but we can’t have everything. Personally, I like the idea of Baghdad as a modern day Sodom. Seems like it would be vastly preferable with better dancing and theater.
In case you think I am joking, I am really not. I fear they dropped the project because it sounds weird and perverse, not because it is any less feasible than many big ticket items they throw hundreds of billions of dollars at.
The man’s got a point. I’ll be damned if he doesn’t.
Give me enough time Chris and I can come up with one or two.
I wonder if the “Chelsea Project” idea was cribbed from a story by Clive Barker. “The Age of Desire” is about a powerful chemical aphrodisiac that makes its victims literally insatiable (not just a bit horny), to the point that the gender (and, if I remember correctly) species of the objects of desire don’t matter.
In a military context, such a weapon would render enemy combatants ineffective because they would be too busy f***ing anything that moves to fight. The gay thing would be more of a side effect, not necessarily essential to the effectiveness of the stratagem, although it would certainly be something of a force multiplier when used on units from highly homophobic cultures.
That sounds like bloodthirsty, cold thinking my friend. Just think what a sock puppet could make of that!
I know your version Lance. Which is why we get along so well. BFF buddy.
And thanks for the invitation into your tent,
But I’ll pass.
Good. As do I. As do I make an effort at conversion, but not so much with the neo part.
I married a set in stone liberal Democrat four years ago. I have turned her solidly into a libertarian, albeit a left leaning libertarian. So I know it’s possible to show people the light.
So why not open up your tent for Democrats?
You should ask your neolibertarian godfather Dale Franks,
Yeah right. I should have just laughed at my beloved’s political leanings instead of trying to persuade her. That would have gotten me far. (all the way to the couch)
Good thing I don’t listen to Dr. Dale. That guy contradicts himself every time he hits the “submit post” button.
Followed by, not two sentences later, this contradictory recognition,
So my definition of neolibertarian #1… check.
Which is, of course, a ridiculous notion of “big tent”. You yourself admit that Ron Paul’s celebrity, although being fermented by a single issue, may have some influence with the committed Left. Smaller, less intrusive government is something that most people can get behind.
So neolibertarians can close the door to Democrats if they wish, … but good luck with that. (see November, 2006)
Moving on…
Well if you identify with #4 (4. Assimilate, damn you) then your definitely a neo.
Again… from your godfather,
Oh really?
How in the hell is that anywhere near libertarian philosophy?
José can wear his sombrero while singing La Cuchuracha right in the middle of town square until he’s blue in the face, and that shouldn’t concern anyone even remotely libertarian one bit.
And it’s surprising that you, having lived in Texas (gasp… don’t I mean Tejas?), can see that a group of people not eagerly willing to assimilate to a culture could possibly be a threat. And you know damn well that their children will assimilate.
What a joke.
If anything, they bringing their culture with them is a plus to the American cultural identity. I don’t know about you, man, but I like tacos.
Margaritas…. Yummy, dude.
As with any cultural influence throughout the history of this great melting pot, we take the good and leave the bad … well … to the connoisseurs.
And though you may feel it unfortunate to be painted in the same colors as your neolibertarian founders, I feel I must use the same broad brush that you and MichaelW are so willing to use to paint all who tend an anti-war rally as traitorous socialist America-haters. What’s good for the goose, and what what.
But I’m not giving up on you yet, Lance. I’ll bring you over from the dark side. All I have to do is convince you that using an expeditionary military force for nation building is not in the interest of national security, nor is it useful to the taxpayer, and that it fosters limitations on domestic liberty. Not so easy though, huh?
Wait… I know. I’ll just get you drunk (on Margaritas, of course), take you out on the town, and then you’ll wake up in bed the next morning with some fat, smelly hippy chic from Code Pink, realize what a wonderful time it was, and then see the errors of your ways.
MichaelW??? Well, he’s going to be a tougher nut to crack, I think.
First of all, his notion that not allowing same sex marriages is a good thing because it is in the interest of the State to promote heterosexual partnerships falls nowhere near a libertarian philosophy. (Interest of the State = square peg, libertarian philosophy = round hole.)
Cheers.
I’m hurt. I even wrote you a paean.
You should really get my argument correct before trying to hold it up as some sort of flag indicative of my being a poseur to “real” libertarians. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, my stance on gay marriage is that it is unnecessary and unhelpful. Marriage is about offspring, period. The unintended consequences of allowing anyone to marry anyone for whatever reason should be looked into before making such a leap. I have no moral objection to gay marriage. My interest is simply in the legal policy.
I include you anyway. You are neo, whether you like it or not you minimum wage loving scamp.
You may be left neo, but you are a neo. As for Dale, well he has a point. he isn’t closing the door, he is saying they have closed the door and have no interest in ours. I hope paul and the efforts of people such as yourself (and believe it or not, me) changes that, but Dale isn’t wrong. Or not completely, I don’t see the Democrats as being all that personal liberty friendly relative to the Republicans except in a couple of discrete areas. The Republicans economic liberty commitment is low as well, though somewhat closer to the mark. When it comes to such things as free speech, well, on the biggest issues the Republicabs are better, though the Democrats generally eschew flag buring and porn bashing, except the feminist wing.
LOL. I was talking about the assimilate and toe the line of many libertarians.
Still, funny.
I am on board with most of what you are driving at there Pogue, I just wonder when you will assimilate? I am generally a fan of expanded immigration, though I am leaning more towards making illegal immigration more difficult, but I have no hard line there. As for your code Pink chick, my wife gets jealous, so you need someone for her.
Michael W, gay couples are just as capable of rearing children as straight couples. Unless, that is, you define the child aspect as only couples that can produce children, in which case you’d want to deal with adoption, considering the extreme numbers of children whose parents have abandoned them. And maybe also withdraw marriage rights for straight couples who don’t have children, or are infertile, or the elderly who wish to marry.
Sorry, saving marriage for the children is a farce. And as a gay man who does hope to have a family one day, assuming Virginia ever legally allows me to have a family (itself an idea so offensive I have a difficult time even repeating it), I am quite taken aback that you think my inability (note I didn’t say “refusal”) to impregnate a woman should determine what legal rights I an entitled to.
I think one of the primary distinctions between libertarian philosophy and what the conservatives and liberals spew is that libertarians think all people are fundamentally equal under the law – no exceptions, no favorites. Equal. We either have certain rights (like marriage), or we don’t – no exceptions, no favorites. Anything else is petty social bias, and has no business in a country that prides itself on its love of individual liberty.
Come be a Liberal Capitalist, where being gay is OH-TAY =;^D
yours/
peter.
You can call me a neo if you want. You can call me Pavarotti if you want, doesn’t mean I’ll sing for you. And I don’t love minimum wage laws, I just see it as a reasonable compromise. I would object to an unreasonable minimum wage law. If I, as the employer that I am, were required by law to … say … pay someone at least $20 per hour, I would see that as unreasonable.
I know for a fact that labor costs are near the bottom of the list of my expenditures, and I pay my guys top wages (comparably). Minimum wage laws affect me zero, as I pay wages well in excess of minimum requirements, so I offer no sympathy for big business when I hear lamentations of rising labor costs due to minimum wage laws. Those cries are bullsh*t. So I do see minimum wage laws as a reasonable compromise.
Just as I see regulations on work place safety as generally reasonable.
It is reasonable for high rise construction firms to be required – by law – to provide safety harnesses and hard hats. These laws and regulations are merely reasonable, and one does not have to badge themselves neo to recognize that.
I’m not an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, that would be just silly.
But look at my definition of neolibertarian. I’m no where near those positions.
I don’t sing that tune.
It sounds like sh*t.
And MichaelW,
You know I love you Bubba.
I’m a lover, not a fighter. Despite our many disagreements.
But this,
Oh, I believe I got you down pat.
I fail to see any ambiguity in this statement…
It is a clear quote, “I am concentrating in the state’s interest in marriage.”
Take another look,
I am holding that up as a flag.
I think it is a clear statement displaying your liege to the power and interest of the state as opposed to the power and interest of the individual.
I also think that you just refuse to stand tall enough to see it.
Foreign policy, economic justice, national security, and more, can libertarians of all stripes have legitimate disagreements on.
But gay marriage – this is my litmus test. You don’t pass this litmus test, you don’t pass muster.
If you believe that tens of millions of people shouldn’t be “granted the same bundle of rights” that the majority hold, you do not believe in liberty for all. End of story.
And it matters not, what you believe is the intention of marriage. It matters only to the intention of your marriage. Not to others.
My wife and I do not intend to procreate, so by your definition and philosophy, the legal union between my wife and I are, to you, meaningless and pointless.
Forget the fact that my union with my wife also includes the intention of giving command someone other than the state the distribution of my property, and forget the fact that my union with my wife also includes the intention of giving command someone other than the state life and death medical decisions?
Why would one wish to forget those things?
Never should one mind calls of civil unions and private contracts between individuals as being comparable to the legal institution of marriage, unless one calls for the abandonment of the legal institution of marriage all together (something that Jon Henke advocates… well, before he began his employment for the Republican party. I suspect that no such ideas will be heard from again while he remains in their employ.)
For the legal institution of marriage is merely a convenient, patterning, and expeditious way to grant this bundle of rights.
MichaelW… Come on, man. See the light. It’s right there in front of you. As western culture has frequently weathered the often foreboding tempests challenging socially accepted prohibitions as antiquated, so shall we again ride the waves to a better society accepting of all. It’s only a matter of time.
Weigh anchor, swabbie. We’re leaving without you.
Leave the antiquated social taboos behind you.
They weigh you down.
Cheers.
Well hell then Pogue, I ain’t a neo either!
1. Big tent libertarianism – No Democrats allowed.
As I said, they are welcome. They don’t want me or libertarianism.
2. Freedom and justice for all – Well,… maybe not all.
All. Heck, I don’t even keep it to our borders or national interest.
3. Do not speak ill of fellow Republicans neolibertarians.
Ted Stevens, Lott, Coulter, Hannity, I could go on. On the libertarian front I don’t speak ill of many neo- or otherwise, true, but maybe I can find some more. generally my “attacks” have been focused on a few people, and some I admire (such as Yglesias.)
4. Assimilate, damn you.
Now that I understand what you mean, I definitely ain’t in that camp.
5. “Gay people, shut up and take it already.”
Well some of em, but that isn’t relegated to gays.
6. The big bad media is being mean to me. /whining
Not mean to me, but I do complain about the media, so you got me there.
7. It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to.
Well, yeah!
I ain’t no neo I guess, I am, who knows? Of course, you do cry Pogue. So, I am 2/7 th’s neo and you are 1/7 th. That is your definition, and who am I to argue with you?