For my Libertarian friends

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree with most foreigners' assessment of American foreign policy. I have a very negative opinion of the American empire and in particular the disgraceful intervention over the past few decades by our CIA. I think the only justifiable US war was the American Revolution. I think WWII was also justified. Without the US intervention, victory wouldn't have been so easy in Europe (I'm not sure the Soviets would have managed all by themselves without the US and allies debilitating the western flank) and the Pacific war would've extended for ages... Also, once Pearl Harbour was attacked, it was not a matter of choice...

US economic actions and pacific troop movements no doubt provoked Japan's actions on Pearl Harbor. A convincing, though not definitive case, has been made that the provocations were intentional and that the government had knowledge of the attack prior to its occurring. Does this alleviate guilt from Japan? Certainly, it does not. Does this make entry justified? I believe it does not. Provoking an enemy attack and allowing it to happen, so that you may have public justification to enter a war you fancy is certainly not just in terms of the criteria I described. It's not just according to most criteria.

Even taking the entrance into WWII as justified, I can no longer with a sound mind justify the Allied actions in the war. History has chosen to forget them,  Partly from a to the victor go the spoils fact of history and partly because Hitler's actions overshadowed Allied war crimes. The way the war was conducted was not legitimate IMO.

During my gradual transition to libertarian philosophy, many of my core beliefs changed.The change in my attitude towards war has been by far the one for which I'm most thankful. Seeing that I used to justify tarriffs or wealth egalitarianism strikes me as misguided. However, my prior views on war are disgusting and despicable looking back. Most libertarian dialogue focuses on their domestic economic policy. People discuss this more than anything. I think though that libertarian foreign policy deserves far more attention and represents to movement very well.

Pretty much any war is due to men behaving like a****les and could have been avoided unless women were in charge of everything and then it might be a monthly thing. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - October 14 2010 at 13:09

thellama73 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: I am not as anti-war as many Libertarians. I recognize that there are times where violent conflict is the lesser of two evils. In particular, I support World War 2 and the American Revolution. Most of the others we have been involved in, however, have turned out to be somewhat unnecessary, hindsight being 20/20. I supported the Iraq War in the beginning, because I think it was necessary for us to hit the Islamic world hard to demonstrate that we do not take being bombed lightly, but it has dragged on for too long and the Afghanistan thing is pointless. Was it really wise to respond to the attacks with the type of foreign policy which brought them about in the first place? Responding to the attackers is fine. However, such efforts should have been as narrow as possible. Overthrowing Sadam and then rebuilding the nation in our image had nothing to do with terrorism, and we didn't even really try to justify it on those grounds. You and I disagree on this. I do not believe that our foreign policy is the reason Islamic extremists hate us. I think it's more fundamental than that.

I forgot that you held that view. My bad brah.

Here's a question about religious liberty vs power of state.

Finnforest wrote: Here's a question about religious liberty vs power of state.   Should the State be able to take children away from parents who refuse them treatment on religious grounds?   We had a case here where a kid was dying of treatable cancer, the parents refused the treatment on religious grounds.    The State forced treatment on the kid, and would have removed him if the parents did anything to intervene.   Should the parents have the right?  The State, in the interest of the child?   Whose rights supercede the other?  Parent or child?    In this case, the kid agreed with the parent...he was 14 and did not want treatment.  But what if the kid was 7 and less able to make his wishes clear?    Anyway, the cancer is now gone and the kid is fine.  Had the parents wishes been honored, the doctors said the kids would have died a pretty nasty death.

I don't think the state can force anyone to receive treatment they do not wish to receive.

I don't purport to have anything close to an easy solution to this dilemma though.

thellama73 wrote: Finnforest wrote: Here's a question about religious liberty vs power of state.   Should the State be able to take children away from parents who refuse them treatment on religious grounds?   We had a case here where a kid was dying of treatable cancer, the parents refused the treatment on religious grounds.    The State forced treatment on the kid, and would have removed him if the parents did anything to intervene.   Should the parents have the right?  The State, in the interest of the child?   Whose rights supercede the other?  Parent or child?    In this case, the kid agreed with the parent...he was 14 and did not want treatment.  But what if the kid was 7 and less able to make his wishes clear?    Anyway, the cancer is now gone and the kid is fine.  Had the parents wishes been honored, the doctors said the kids would have died a pretty nasty death. That's a really tough one. I am very hesitant to let the state take children away from their parents, since it is a power that can very easily be abused. When I was very young and my parents decided to homeschool me, it was not really legal and we had to be careful about which doctors I went to and all that, because they could turn me over to child protective services if they didn't agree with my parents' decision. That terrifies me. On the other hand, child abuse obviously happens and cannot be allowed. When do religious views cross over into child abuse? I really can't say.

I can answer this, but not now.  I'm drinking me Busch Light.

But not forcing me 3-year-old out of bed to drink it too.

Robert....playing devil's advocate though....what if the Guv started to stretch these protections to include other things like corporal punishment, which it could be argued is hurting a minor.....

Actually it IS argued that spanking harms children.....though it didn't seem to destroy all the kids I grew up with

Finnforest wrote: Robert....playing devil's advocate though....what if the Guv started to stretch these protections to include other things like corporal punishment, which it could be argued is hurting a minor..... Actually it IS argued that spanking harms children.....though it didn't seem to destroy all the kids I grew up with

I don't have a problem with hurting minors.  I have a problem with hurting them when they don't deserve it.

Epignosis wrote: Homeschooling is a different subject, because no harm is being done (or allowed to be done) to a child. The government is to protect the right to life, and that includes the right to life for youth.

Ah, but there's the rub. "Harm" is such a vague term that it can be defined as almost anything. Many people seriously believe that a child deprived of formal schooling will never learn to read, and spend his life as a gibbering fool. "By depriving the child of education," they'll say "you are abusing him."

I know some people who got in trouble for not having milk in their refrigerator, as if that was a form of child abuse. You give the state these powers and it always goes way too far. I also think parents should be allowed to spank their children, but your ice pick example is an extreme enough case that I would agree with taking the child away.

thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Homeschooling is a different subject, because no harm is being done (or allowed to be done) to a child. The government is to protect the right to life, and that includes the right to life for youth. Ah, but there's the rub. "Harm" is such a vague term that it can be defined as almost anything. Many people seriously believe that a child deprived of formal schooling will never learn to read, and spend his life as a gibbering fool. "By depriving the child of education," they'll say "you are abusing him." I know some people who got in trouble for not having milk in their refrigerator, as if that was a form of child abuse. You give the state these powers and it always goes way too far. I also think parents should be allowed to spank their children, but your ice pick example is an extreme enough case that I would agree with taking the child away.

What I mean is, there's a difference between allowing and prohibiting something.  Forcing a child to do something dangerous (like jump out of an airplane without a parachute as a religious rite) is different than letting parents educate their children as they see fit.

At some point, one has to accept that parents want what is best for their children, but we all know that isn't always the case!  Hence child molesters, etc. 

When it comes to education though, I think parents should be the educators of their children.  Or they should pay to send them to school.  Bottom line.  The government here has shown how poor it is in educating children, so either let parents do it, or pay for it to be done.  YES kids will grow up without a chance.

Oh well. It's no difference than how it is now.

However, when it becomes apparent that physical harm is a part of this, the government should step in.

My opinion as of now- Oct. 14 2010 and a bottle of Malbec and 6 beers in.