 |
 Freedom Network News September-October 2001
Letters to the Editor
The following e-mail responses are in response to the ISIL World Freedom E-bulletin of
September 19th, 2001. Comments from personal replies by ISIL VP and E-Bulletin editor/manager Jim Elwood are included as well:
Educate Christians, Jews, Moslems
on Common Libertarian Origins
This is the best idea that I have heard yet. I would go one step farther and educate Christians, Jews and Moslems on their common libertarian origins. In doing so you should team up with the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty http://www.acton.org as well as Minaret of Freedom Foundation. In fact, it was from the Acton Institute that I first heard of Minaret of Freedom Foundation.
Another idea is to raise money for mass distribution of Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom."
Some people here in the U.S. are starting to paint this as a war of Islam vs. Christianity and Judaism. We really need to head this off. As someone who did his graduate studies in Religion, I would like to be involved in some fashion with this effort. I wrote the attached essay about four years ago to promote libertarianism among American Christians. It is generic enough so that it could appeal to all three religions. . . . Robert Maynard Vermont, USA.
[Will forward it upon request – JRE]
Do We Need Governments To
Protect Us From Such Events
Odette and I have not stopped feeling a profound compassion for our American friends and wish to express it. I do not intend, however, to inflict on you my reflections on this subject. I will just tell you how much I appreciate the position that ISIL is taking (formulated in an e-mail from Jim Elwood that most of you have probably received) and just share with you a creeping concern: do we need governments to protect us from such events, or do such events exist because there are governments? This is a new form of the old debate between Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. If you feel confident that you have irresistible arguments in favour of one or the other side of the issue, I would be grateful to know them – providing you can express them in no more than twenty lines! . . . . Jacques de Guenin, St Loubouer, France, President of Le Cercle Bastiat, and the ISIL Dax conference organizer.
[I will forward submissions – JRE]
Majority of Us Being Fooled
Interesting letter. Have you ever studied the Koran? Also, the letter states that the majority of Muslims are peaceful (which is clearly not outlined in their religion) yet it warns against enraging and evoking the anger of "millions" of angry, militant Muslim youths? That seems sort of contradictory. I don't know what I think about a solution but I do know and agree that the US has no political or economic gains in the Middle East (the letter mentions 4% of our oil is from there?) . . . this is a Holy War. That's why a lot of it doesn't make sense to the average person. I agree that there are probably very many Muslims who are unaware of the oaths and beliefs that are a part of their religion just as many Christians have never read the Bible. But, to say that Muslims and Islam is a peace-loving group? Wrong.
I do think that people should be viewed as individuals and not part of some large groups .... but I also feel that the majority of us are being fooled. Is the solution to kill the terrorist groups? Or do what? I don't know. Am finding it hard to remain silent these days. Just needed to respond. . . . A Reader in New York
[JRE Response] Thanks for your note. No, I haven't studied the Koran, but will be, along with reading up on Middle East history. I hope some scholars who know more than I do can help out.
The holy war issue is a real challenge. I'm sure most Muslims really detest us, but most Americans detest them too. It's still a long way from detesting to killing, and (fortunately) very few have gone that far – so far. Our challenge is to keep it that way – which will be difficult and very tricky, but necessary. We will be very careful in any final statements, research papers, etc. Thanks again for your support!
Some Interesting Solutions
Now that the dust is settling and it seems that an American police state is emerging.
Here are some other thoughts I've been developing: The US is being stampeded into a war. If there is an official declaration of war, the resulting suspension of civil liberties will be the most pronounced the US has seen since W.W.II. The advocates of Big Government will have everything they've been wanting for the last 40 years handed to them on a silver platter of legal sanction and public approval. I think opposing such an official declaration of war is crucial, but I don't know that there are enough pro-freedom people to significantly deflect the course of the stampede at this point. Even some libertarians and Objectivists are saying that it's okay if innocent civilians, even children, in Afghanistan are killed in retaliatory bombings. If even such supposedly pro freedom minds react this way, I see no credible hope that the American public at large can be reasoned with and prevented from giving their freedoms away and provoking more violence with indiscriminate violence of their own.
A less ambitious goal might be to spread the meme that any measures enacted in response the the 911 attack should have a one-year sunset clause. After all, isn't it "reasonable" to reconsider things when the passions of the moment have passed, when the public is less panicked (and its alleged representatives are less pressed to do anything to look like they are doing something)?
For example, I don't know if the snooping law the Senate just passed can be prevented from passing the House -- and Bush would certainly sign it if it came to his desk -- but it might be possible to get a one-year sunset clause added. If so, and abuse is egregious, or the scare diminishes, it might be possible to keep the law from being renewed in 2002. Otherwise, we're stuck with it. Of course, I don't want to advocate any new laws or infringements of civil liberties (and personally, I do plan to speak out against war as much as I can). Sadly, I expect to lose a lot of ground. So the tactical part of me is thinking of ideas that can pushed to try to reduce the amount of harm done. If you think this idea of pushing for sunset clauses in all counter-terrorism measures passed in the wake of 911 makes sense, please forward it where appropriate. I'm still thinking about what else can be done. . . . Louis James, Executive Director Free-Market.Net
The Right to Self Defense A Major Issue
Just a couple of quick thoughts and suggestions:
- Check out Justin Raimondo's antiwar.com site for helpful commentary about our foreign policy and its consequences.
- Go to townhall.com, the conservative web forum of columnists, and read Bruce Bartlett's wonderful recent column about the free market and pro-civilization values in Islam and Arab culture at its height and at its best.
- Why not add another major priority to your list – specifically, the right of self-defense – emphasizing the moral distinction between aggression, which is evil, and self-defense, which is moral – and the lessons of this tragedy regarding gun control.
Check out L. Neil Smith's webley website and J. Neil Schulman's e-mail missives, regarding the likelihood of this tragedy having been preventable if our pilots had the right to be armed, if we had armed incognito sky marshals on most flights, and if we private citizens could qualify to fly with tasers.
Finally, a cautionary note. Any focus on limiting the retaliation or military response can be misperceived as leftist pacifism and anti-Americanism. So words upholding the need for a peaceful noninterventionist foreign policy must be coupled with the moral distinction I just mentioned above – as part of the foundation for a proper foreign policy. . . . . Michael Grossberg, Columbus, Ohio. (founder of the Free Press Association)
[Michael Grossberg was organizer of the first Libertarian Futurist Society conference
held this past Memorial Day weekend in Columbus, Ohio (which ISIL Pres. Vince
Miller and I attended – JRE].
A Theory Behind Happenings of Sept 11
A very well written message. Keep up the good work.
I have analyzed a theory of why (and how) these people (the militant) "so called" Muslims did what they did. This is by no means aimed at the millions of peaceful Muslims.
Why: they not only hate us, but more importantly, they fear us. If the whole world became free it would end their 1,000+ years of enslaving women (and to a lesser degree each other as men). This would mean an end to life as they know it. Very hard for them to swallow. How: They do not know love, at all. The men make slaves of the women, and no slave "loves" his/her master. The young boys growing up cannot possibly respect their mothers, whom they see treated as slaves. They have so many wives and children they do not have the in-depth kind of love and respect for their wives and children as most of the (even marginally) free world does. This lack of love means they do not value life in the same respect at all the way we do.
I feel that if we are to indeed conquer terrorism, we must consider these two aspects of their life. You must know your enemy to defeat them. Dean Brittain, Mt Vernon, Washington State, USA
Theories of Restitution & Market for Justice
The Gulf War was very late in the game. We should never have aided in the founding of the state of Israel in a way that violated the property rights of those there resident. I see generations of violence if we fail to make restitution for that misguided act. Restitution and apologies are still owed, no matter what this group of individuals have done in NY and DC. Ireland is still unsafe for children. We do not want to leave a legacy of violence to our great-grandchildren. Libertarians are competing in a market of cultural strategies. They have failed to prove that the strategies they promote are better for individuals who want benevolence and the non-initiation of force to be the accepted forms of human action. Libertarian strategies for social justice don't even work as well as what is in use today. If not government, then what? That is the question that goes unanswered when we consider questions such as rape, domestic violence, sexually predatory behavior towards the weak and in third world countries. That is actually the area in which I am working. I am presently writing a chapter for the book entitled, "A Market for Social Justice." The title of the book is, A License to Steal: No Fault Divorce and other Social Atrocities. So much for the advertisement. You take care. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster Santa Barbara, California, USA
[JRE Response] . . . Thanks for your thoughtful followup. You're right about Israel. We can go even further back. The Economist noted that Sept 11, 1922 was the date the British established a mandate over Palestine, which infuriated the Arabs.
I certainly agree with issuing apologies in conjunction with any systematic disengagement by the USG from the Middle East.
Restitution could be a real can of worms, though. Innocent civilian victims of recent (or likely future) US military actions is pretty straightforward. Everything else raises the questions of to whom, for what circumstances "yes" and others "no," and by whom are all messy. I'm not opposed to the whole idea, just pointing out how tricky it would be.
There was some debate among libertarians back in the late '80s about how to handle restitution re Palestinian land ownership – which mainly proved how complicated the issue is – even if necessary to any Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Will be interested in seeing the book. I agree that there are gaps in the libertarian literature. I have to admit that as a somewhat nerdy (typical) Libertarian guy that my strengths are history and economics, not psychology, sociology, feminism and most other such social issues.
A Different Take On "Draining The Swamp"
There are things that should work long term. Let's take that phrase so popular among our new warriors in the beltway, "draining the swamp." (I first heard this used in the current discussion by Laurie Melroie, former special advisor on Iraq to the Clinton administration. However, her use referred to the fact that Iraq was very possibly responsible for both the '93 WTC bombing and the recent attack. The Clinton people, according to her, did not want to hear that Saddam was responsible, as that would have meant a serious military response. Who knows what classified knowledge the White House has about possible hidden nukes or other major threats already planted in U.S. cities by agents of Iraq? So, you look for your keys in the light, not where you lost them...)
Anyway, I want to bring to the fore a different take on "draining the swamp." As I see it, the "swamp" is the matrix of social, political, national, religious and economic forces that encourage hostility and pre-emptive hostile action between groups of people. Given any two groups – even opposing soccer fans, as we have seen – it is possible to build from virtually nothing to a murderous conflict if there is not an underlying sense of trust and a feeling of the value of ones fellow man.
Once a conflict exists between defined groups, there is also an incentive for political manipulators to increase the level of conflict and capitalize on it, becoming great leaders or simply profiting by selling arms to both sides, to give just one example.
Once trust and fellowship is gone and replaced by fear, then the opposing group becomes dehumanized. Then it is okay to pass laws that exacerbate the situation, on the grounds of security. . . .Phil Osborn, Mountain Valley, California.
[This is excerpted from a long, interesting e-mail that also talks about bringing about new
"social contracts" through the Internet and such things. I will forward Phil's full e-mail on
request – JRE]
Question Regarding Oil Import Percentages
I read your note with much interest and agree with most of your premise, however I believe that we here in the USA import significantly more than 4% of our oil from the middle east.
Liberty Matters (http://www.libertymatters.org) reports that nearly 60% of America's oil comes from the 11 OPEC members. Someone isn't correct on their figures.
Could you please re-examine yours?
This issue is important enough so that folks shouldn't let the discussions get marginalized by arguments over wrong numbers. And, yes you are correct most problems international and domestic are the products of statism. If only we could rid ourselves of those who want to portray themselves as having had the happy revelation that they know what is best for the rest of us." . . .James M. Parker Arlington, Washington State
[Thanks for your note. I'll check the figures. I do know for sure that we import about 60% of our total oil consumption. And it has been reported that most of it comes from Venezuela (an OPEC member – in fact they instigated the founding of OPEC in 1960), and from Mexico (not in OPEC).
The big oil companies have operations all over the world – including retail sales. So US companies like Exxon buy lots of oil from the state companies in the Middle East, but most of it goes to Europe for refining and sale through their outlets there.
The interest of the US government has been to prop up the Saudi and Kuwaiti monarchies and other sheiks with military sales andsupport in exchange for keeping oil prices relatively low.
|
|
