Libertarians and Terrorists ~ Common TraitsIraq, Ireland, the US and the State of World Affairs~An Answer to a Comment of a Story Circulated on the Libertarian eGroups/Yahoo!Groups realtruth, libnetd, freedomseek and offshoredestiny by John ZubeA libertarian full
of territorial convictions is a total imposture.
Gian Piero de Bellis TO MAKE MATTERS CLEAR ENOUGH, WE SHOULD USE CLEAR ENOUGH LANGUAGE! Where in the world are political, economic and social matters truly the "business of the people"??? Where in the world do even "the" people exist at all, not only in form of a careless generalization??? At most only diverse groups of volunteers exist within every "nation", "people" or territorial "state". Only they deserve the name of groups or genuine communities. The inmates of any national territorial prisons should not be called "people". Nor should one describe their various groups as if all of them were equally free to act in accordance with their beliefs and convictions. The problem for most people, everywhere, individuals and their voluntary groups, is, that under the present territorial system they are nowhere quite free or free enough to really mind their own business. It was certainly wrong to describe e.g. the over 100 various ethnic and many more other groups under Stalin, the dissenters and other victims under Hitler, and those under Mao, as "a" people or as "the" people. Interference with such rulers is not necessarily interference with "the people", unless one resorts e.g. to WMD* against the population, indiscriminate area bombing etc. If territorial governments were, what they pretend to be and are widely believed to be, upholders of justice internally and of international law, based on individual rights, externally, then they ought to interfere with internal criminals with victims as well as with very powerful external criminals with victims, as was at least the intention, alas, not always the reality e.g. in WW II. What makes even the intervention of the best intentioned and perhaps most democratic governments in the world in other countries bad is, that they do not confine their activities to the killing, capture and prosecution of private or official terrorists, or the overthrow of any dictatorship, but that they make it "their" "business" to impose another territorial regime upon very diverse individual and minority group people, instead of letting all individuals and all their voluntary groups make their own decisions on their own lives, even in all political, economic and social matters. Instead, they apply a kind of territorial, constitutionalized, legalized and juridically excused "terrorism" or at least severe authoritarianism, themselves - upon all dissenters in a country. (Instance the war against drug users and drug traders.) At most they give them a chance to express a protest vote or to try to become a ruling majority or ruling minority by means of persuasion. But they do not aim for or allow that politics, economics and social matters become really the affairs of individual people and of voluntary groups, as their own business. They do so neither internally nor externally. They should be blamed mainly for THAT, not for overthrowing a dictatorship, one of a regime that at least tried to acquire WMD for a long time and blocked any thorough inspection for years. Since US politicians, too, cannot imagine such a quite just and free state of affairs for all (panarchic, polyarchic etc.), naturally, in their external affairs they do not apply such war and peace aims but merely the territorial and "democratic" or "republican" non-solution, which in countries like Iraq would satisfy at most a minority. It does not lead to peace between strongly dissenting and numerous groups there and in many other places in the world. Not even in Ireland. To my knowledge not even full religious liberty was proclaimed as a major rightful war and peace aims there, far less the full equivalent of it in the political, economic and social sphere. Blockading for years, all of Iraq, was naturally wrong, for Saddam Hussein's regime was at most supported by a strong minority, not by the majority of all individuals in Iraq. That was another application of the "principle of collective responsibility" which no government, no party and no peace movement, to my knowledge, has as yet strongly rejected on moral and utilitarian grounds. How many books and articles of libertarians and anarchists can you quote which attack that "principle"? If they do not attack it then they have at least this faith in common with most of the active terrorists and those rulers who conduct indiscriminate warfare. Some sense was only shown during the second war in Iraq when military targets and potential hiding places for Saddam Hussein were the main target for bombs and rockets. But even the supposedly smart bombs and rockets often missed the target and killed innocents instead. According to one report one of them landed even in another country! Is the bureaucratized CIA so inefficient that it could not even launch an efficient attack against a single dictator like S.H., on the ground? At least the US government put a price on the head of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and some of their henchmen. But that, on its own, without a sound peace program, was certainly not enough. How many libertarians and anarchists called for such prize money and subscribed towards such funds? Are such "leaders" the kind of leaders which "the" people deserve? Are their victims free to "mind their own business"? Territorialism, collective responsibility notions and insistence upon majority rule, however "democratic" and "republican", not only openly and comprehensively despotic regimes, not only fanatic religious and ideological movements, all territorialism is a breeding ground for terrorists, civil wars, revolutions, dictators and wars. But do all libertarians and anarchists as yet reject territorialism, collective responsibility and majority rule??? Libertarians and anarchists should begin to ponder when, where and under what conditions THEY would be prepared to resort to rightful arms, in rightful ways and for what kinds of rightful war and peace aims, against the remaining dictators in the world and against future ones, instead of merely blaming the blundering own or other territorial governments, which are based upon the usual territorialist and majority despotic notions. They should not expect quite moral and rational ideas and actions from their own and other territorial governments - but should expect such ideas and actions among themselves and prepare for such actions of their own, apart from suggesting them, for publicity purposes, as rightful alternative actions to their own governments. Simply asking the own government to do nothing in external affairs is not good enough. What does "MYOB"** mean, IN DETAIL, IN ALL SPHERES? The continued possession alone, of nuclear mass murder or anti-people "weapons" in the hands of "democratic" governments like the US, England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. and the centralization of decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament, in such countries, turns them, too, into despotic regimes, as stated already by Immanuel Kant in his "Eternal Peace", in 1795. Not to speak of numerous other interventionist actions. Neutrality and isolationism or apathy towards such threats are not a solution, either. What Rothbard said in "War, Peace and the State", on nuclear weapons, remains still largely ignored by most libertarians. To that extent they are just as guilty as is President Bush. My own two peace books, which do take up these and related questions in some detail (www.panarchism.info), remain also ignored, by most libertarians and anarchists, and this for decades, although, to my knowledge, no libertarian or anarchist has as yet offered a better peace book. If you do know of one, please, name it! To that extent, I have also some reasons to blame libertarians and anarchists for the present state of the world. They have failed to enlighten themselves sufficiently on the freedom and justice preconditions for a lasting peace in the world, although this should be among their major topics. Retrospectively, wouldn't you wish that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, had been kidnaped or assassinated in time, before they committed most of their mass murders? Shouldn't coups have been initiated against them? Should countries under the rule of Hitler not have been "invaded" and at least somewhat liberated? Was Saddam Hussein an innocent man, a benefactor to "his" "people"? In your anger about the wrongs and mistakes of your government, you cease to be objective about other governments that are much worse, like e.g. the North Korean one, which, never minding starvation among its subjects, prepares openly for a nuclear war. (Admittedly, the US government has been a nuclear power for the longest time. But, at least after the first two abuses of these "weapons" it did not use them again, so far. That does not make it right for it to keep them "in readiness" - against WHOM? It would, obviously, not have needed a nuclear weapon to wipe out S.H. and if it had been used, then it would, most likely, have killed and injured a million of more or less innocent people and not only him.) Should we really preach and practise complete non-intervention or complete "non-violence" towards all such regimes? Should we not at least try to develop and publish a peace program that would, in extremity, be worthwhile fighting for, rightfully, with rightful weapons, methods and war and peace aims, but which, with its obvious rightfulness and rationality could greatly contribute to prevent further wars? If e.g. West Germans had known how well they would be treated by the Western Allies, after WW II, would they have bothered to fight for a Hitler? Did American libertarians and anarchists know and teach German people how to effectively overthrow a regime like that of Hitler? Were they offered a separate peace? Was any German government in exile recognized? (Apart from that which the Soviets had prepared for East Germany and we know how bad that was.) What kind of program could and probably would come to appeal e.g. to most of the people living in Iraq, including all the dissenting minorities? If we found or developed it, should we not try to publish and to realize it there - and elsewhere? Obviously, neither the USA government nor the UN do so far offer such a program. Do libertarians and anarchists offer it? Their programs, too, have so far appealed only to a tiny minority. That the US government bothers an innocent student, SF fan and rocketry fan, should concern us much less than some of the questions I put forward above. Serious thinking about HOW to achieve a lasting peace in freedom and justice has barely begun among libertarians and anarchists. If I am wrong in this, PLEASE, do prove me wrong. PIOT***, John Zube. PEACE PLANS, Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, ON PANARCHY, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, etc. www.acenet.com.au/~jzube www.butterbach.net/lmp www.panarchy.org www.exterritorial.info * = weapons of mass destruction [should anyone not yet have run into that abbreviation... :-)] ** = mind your own business *** = Panarchy In Our Time |
|
no paid advertising on this non-profit site, please support it
Copyright © 1998-2004 Christian Butterbach. All
rights reserved |