The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
November 05, 2002
A challenge to the Libertarian Party If I can be blunt about it, when did the Libertarian Party become such a bunch of cheap pacifist fools?
I issue this challenge with love. I was passing out Ed Clark propaganda before I even turned 18, and before I had even met another party member. I am currently chairman of the Franklin County party in Indiana, and a Libertarian party candidate for tax assessor. I have never in life voted against a candidate of the Libertarian party. Yet for the first time, I find myself significantly uncomfortable with the party.
I'm not real thrilled about it, but I'm for military action against Iraq. Hussein is a menace, and we aren't behooved to wait till this jerk gets nukes before we deal with him. I can see where it looks somewhat questionable, but this clearly IS an issue of self-defense. "No blood for oil" was a convincing argument last time around, but not this one. Oil ain't the point.
There are bunches of evil sumbitches working against us in an asymmetrical fashion. There's not a country with a government openly declaring war and sending guys in uniforms. That obviously wouldn't get them far. Nonetheless, we are under attack, and against civilians in our own territory, and clearly facing the very real possibility of stuff much worse than 9/11. There's a nasty nest of poisonous snakes hissing at us, and trying to bite us- and succeeding most famously last year.
Proper application of libertarian theory would say that we're not looking for a fight, but if you threaten and attack us, you're asking to get destroyed. "Don't tread on me" and all that, you know. We've been hit, and plans continue afoot for more hitting, of much worse varieties. Therefore, anybody or any governments or societies that support this in any way are asking to get squished.
The party is WAY out of line on this issue. Our leadership frequently puts out press releases and columns relentlessly opposing any US military response to terrorism past the invasion in Afghanistan- and they considered even that controversial. Hey, guys- protecting the nation from attack is the main one legitimate function the government is supposed to perform. I fear that we are foolishly opposing that.
Frankly, I've seen some nonsense from the LP with this that makes me cringe. For example, our US senate candidate in Montana (the infamously silly Blue Guy- what an embarrassment to the party) managed to actually get into the televised debate, which opportunity he used to explain that US bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan was "the worst terrorism." I've never voted against a candidate of the LP in my life, but I would write in Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for this fool. We also have some ignoramus running for senate in Missouri got herself arrested blocking access to a munitions plant. Again, Mickey Mouse starts looking good.
You could legitimately be against attacking Iraq on balance. I can imagine some reasonable arguments, and I've heard one or two. Prudence dictates asking tough questions before we start killing people and overthrowing foreign governments. Fair enough. There are some arguments against it, but we have come off way on the wrong side of this. Many of our arguments have just been stupid, like the worst puky communist-excusing nonsense of the olden hippie days. Makes us look like irresponsible children.
Also, I don't think the party at large is nearly as unanimous on this topic as our national office would make it appear. Most of the libertarians I've been reading on the net are pro-war in this case. If not total support, my people in Franklin County seem to be considerably more sympathetic than the national party appears. Who exactly was it that decided that our official party position was to be pacifist pussies? I don't recall voting on this, and I was a delegate at the national convention in Indianapolis.
Many folks in the party are really misinterpreting libertarian principles. Non-aggression makes fine principle, but it doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves. There are a bunch of fools in the Arab world intent on killing us, and destroying our society. Some libertarians seem to think that we have no right to deal with them unless we can prove in a court of law exactly which individuals in which governments funded exactly which splinter group in which attack. Otherwise, see, WE are aggressing and WE are the bad guys. At some point this ceases being a reasonable application of principle, and becomes simply a bunch of lawyerly nonsense.
Just contract with some third parties and blur the tracks. That way you can screw with the US all day, but they won't be willing to respond. This is perhaps merely stupid when we're dealing with retail attacks, simple car bombs and snipers. As these evil savages seek access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, however, this liberal [NOT libertarian] foolishness goes from being stupid to being suicidal.
Nor would I think most of our basic intellectuals and founders would be taking this pacifist line. Robert Heinlein sure wouldn't. I strongly doubt that the author of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress would advocate pussyfooting with Arab terrorists and thugs. Ayn Rand would vote to blast these savages off the map. Not looking for a fight, but Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were practical men. I don't think they'd be too concerned with waiting until these sumbitches killed 50,000 people in NYC with nerve gas before they'd have some MFs whacked.
One more thing about this from a "libertarian" perspective: Consider that aggressive action in the Middle East where this nonsense is originating will take a lot of pressure off from the perceived need to play loose with our constitutional liberties here at home. If we whack a bunch of these bitches in their lairs back home, there won't be as much pressure for national ID cards, and similar nonsense here. We can and are doing things to improve a whole range of physical security issues in the US. However, we can't begin to protect our open society from every wicked thing these people can imagine. We have to stop them on the other side.
I don't believe in empire building, or throwing our weight around just because we can. I'm also real skeptical of throwing the military at things to serve our "national interest," largely because this can all too easily turn out to be using government force and taxpayer dollars to promote private business interests rather than actual American security. This is basic libertarian stuff.
However, neither do I take the position that some principle says that I have to wait for the likes of Hussein or some Iranian mullahs to start nuking us before doing something. I never signed up for any nonsense like that.
Moral principles are supposed to represent ground rules for the preservation and furtherance of life. Thus, self-defense and self-preservation form the basis of morality. Philosophical and party labels aside, I'll support destroying anyone who gives me cause to think they are interested in killing my family or me- and the blood of any innocents they try to use as human shields is on their own heads. Anybody who has any supposed moral principles that say anything different needs to watch some of the 9/11 tapes again, and re-consider.
