First off, the kultists at Lew Rockwell and Anti-war.com are not anti-state.

They will stand up for the "states rights" of multiple Slave-States, including Baathist Iraq and the Confederate States of America.

They are collectivists too, fellow travelers with out-and-out racists, and obsessed with the skin pigmentation of themselves and others.

They hate "neocons" so much that they swallow and repeat the lies of totalitarians.

I said it before, the sick little "cadre" at Lew Rockwell are not our friends or friends of liberty.

They are our enemies, as much so as communists, Robert Mugabe, Baathists, neo-nazis and Al Queda. Their guru was an admitted Leninist for cripes sake, who proudly would lie, cheat and steal (even if it hurt other libertarians), all for the glory of his cadre/front/faction.

The fact they smear the memory of Ludwig Von Mises with this is even more sick.

But what's that? Tick...tock...it's the countdown before George F. and other kults take up arms in the name of the Kadre and use ad hominem and other fallacies to try to distract us from the ugly truth of Lew and his cronies. Watch out for more ink from the squids.

Is there any chance the story was meant as outrageously tasteless satire? That might explain the "smear" charge... either way, these are pretty twisted folks.

Your colleague Radley Balko has just compared the US military to terrorists, writing,

"November 09, 2005
Phosphorus and Napalm
Chemical weapons discovered in Iraq.

Here's the video. If this is true -- and I'm not educated enough in this stuff to know if it is --we've become what we've claimed we're fighting against. This war grows more absurd by the day."
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025833.php#025833

Any thoughts?

Balko is way off base:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19328/

The anti-war crowd has got to learn that dishonesty and pro-terrorist propaganda are not the way to go.

Another colleague of Palmer's, Brooke Oberwetter, had some interesting thoughts on the death of Casey Sheehan. Please read this entire post (http://brooke-oberwetter.typepad.com/blogviations/2005/08/its_just_war.html) for context, but note the end:

"[I] agree that Iraq is not a just war. But what bothers me about his conclusion is that vast bulk of American military operations over the past 6 decades have not, in any sense of the term, been 'just wars.' I certainly don't use that fact to defend the Iraq war, but instead to make the point that in spite of the unjust nature of the conflict, Casey and Cindy Sheehan had little reason to believe that any combat Casey saw would have been for a 'just' cause. There wasn't even a reasonable expectation that only just wars would be fought.

"If an unjust war were a deviation from the norm, Will's conclusion would be more understandable. But that flies in the face of history. He enlisted knowing that unjust war was both possible and probable. ..."

So Ms. Oberwetter maintains that anyone currently enlisted in the US military "had little reason to believe that any combat [he/she] saw would have been for a 'just' cause." He/she "enlisted knowing that unjust war was both possible and probable." Now either Ms. Oberwetter is "evil or crazy" for saying such a thing, or the people she describes are "evil or crazy" for enlisting. What say you?

What a disgusting comment by Sapienza. I came across this foolishness by him before and he clearly has a screw loose if he's serious.

How can anyone who thinks of himself as a libertarian of any stripe make such claims. He's a perverse mirror of pro-war "libertarians" and should always be condemned.

To the anonymous poster:

There is a chasm of difference between what Sapienza has written and the comments made by Brooke and Radley. The latter two are questioning the legitimacy of the war and the tactics used therein. Sapienza, on the other hand, is lamenting the fact that more Americans haven't been killed. One can decry the war without actively calling for the slaughter of American soldiers.

"One can decry the war without actively calling for the slaughter of American soldier"

At this point of history, ecrying the war in genearal is implying the slaughter and enslavement of innocent Iraqis by their former Baathist masters.

But Sapienza isn't satisfied with just that injustice...he wants American blood spilled too.

What a totalitarian slime.

Dan:

I'll grant that Sapienza's comment is callous and politically incorrect. But if US soldiers are participating in terrorism (and I don't see how Balko's statement above can be read any differently) and if they had every reason to believe they would be used for unjust purposes (I don't see how Oberwetter's statement can be read any differently), then Sapienza's statement logically follows, does it not?

Anonymous,

No, it does not logically follow that one would want to see more Americans die because they have been sent by politicians to fight an unjust war. Radley's point is that if chemical weapons were used (and from what I've read, what he links to is bogus), than these actions are immoral. Brooke simply questions the legitimacy of the war. Again, neither of their points can be twisted to mean that we should welcome the wholesale killing of US soldiers. Sapienza wants them dead, in part, because he thinks all soldiers are "worthless illiterate dirtbag sh**sack welfare-suckers to be scraped off the bottom of society's pot and flung away like the human trash they are to be erased from the gene pool in a foreign place." Do you honestly believe that Radley and Brooke share this point of view?

Dan:

You're sugarcoating when you say, "Radley's point is that if chemical weapons were used (and from what I've read, what he links to is bogus), than these actions are immoral. Brooke simply questions the legitimacy of the war."

Balko said that "we've become what we've claimed we're fighting against." Go reread it. What are we supposedly fighting against? Isn't it a "War on Terrorism"? The implication is pretty easy to grasp.

Reread the passage by Oberwetter (and by all means, read the whole post, as I suggested earlier):

"[I] agree that Iraq is not a just war. But what bothers me about his conclusion is that vast bulk of American military operations over the past 6 decades have not, in any sense of the term, been 'just wars.' I certainly don't use that fact to defend the Iraq war, but instead to make the point that in spite of the unjust nature of the conflict, Casey and Cindy Sheehan had little reason to believe that any combat Casey saw would have been for a 'just' cause. There wasn't even a reasonable expectation that only just wars would be fought.

"If an unjust war were a deviation from the norm, Will's conclusion would be more understandable. But that flies in the face of history. He enlisted knowing that unjust war was both possible and probable. ..."

That goes far beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of this particular war.

I will agree with Dan on one thing: unlike Sapienza, Balko and Oberwetter were wise enough not to take their logic to its conclusion.

Anonymous,

I don't want go round and round with you on this, but I'd ask you to check your logical reasoning. Saying the war is unjust doesn't then logically force someone to celebrate the death of American soldiers. They are entirely different strains of thought. And if we did use chemical weapons, that is immoral. Again, it doesn't follow that I should wish that all or even some American soldiers should die because of this fact. It's really quite silly to think that "Balko and Oberwetter were wise enough not to take their logic to its conclusion." Their logical conclusion was that the war is (was) unjust and that using chemical weapons is really bad. Killing Americans has nothing to do with these conclusions.

Dan:

Again, Balko and Oberwetter are undoubtedly more compassionate toward US soldiers than Sapienza is. That's admirable. But the basis of Sapienza's hatred appears to be a logical extension of Balko/Oberwetter's points: that US troops signed up knowing that they would perpetrate injustices, and that those injustices include terrorism.

The logical extension of not liking war is to want to kill all the American soldiers?

Jesus Christ. If someone is a willing terrorist, then it's logical to hate them.

I don't see anything wrong with celebrating the death of someone engaged in terrorizing innocent people than I do in gloating at the death of a rapist. I'll include here the caveat that not all American soldiers are terrorizing the Iraqi populace, perhaps most aren't, but I'm sure Mr. Palmer will ignore it because it's gets in the way of making me look like an inveterate kitten-eater (not to mention a cultist.) I'll just end with a quote from that notorious Cultist Herbert Spencer, "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves."

Speaking of down the memory hole...

Just as I predicted, Palmer erased the post about the US soldier atrocity photo site. I noted how the perpetually outraged Palmer never got around to mentioning that story. Well, here's a link to Andrew Sullivan's blog on the topic: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_09_18_dish_archive.html#112731228557163689

Surely Palmer won't censor a link to Andrew Sullivan?

Of course not, that would be an act of "homophobia."

Palmer is dishonest, and obsessed. Dishonest because the comments he attacks Sapienza for were posted on Sapienza's own blog. What does Antiwar.com have to do with it? Nothing.

Obsessed, because he somehow manages to drag Raimondo into all this. Gee, isn't it odd that Mr. Palmer, although he claims to be against the war, spends 99/9% of his remarks on this issue attacking not only Antiwar.com, but also the entire antiwar movement, even going back to the Vietnam era to pick on that favorite punching bag of the "we were stabbed in the back" crowd, Jane Fonda. Mark Brady has pointed out how Cato has not had anything to say about the war since January -- I wonder how much Palmer has to do with this.

It's pretty transparent: Palmer is pro-war, and I wonder why he hides behind the facade of ostensibly opposing what he obviously supports wholeheartedly. Come out of the, er, closet, Tom -- be yourself. Don't worry: we won't hate you anymore than we already do. And you'll feel so much better....

I routinely delete disgusting pornographic postings, which was precisely what was in the comment I deleted.

In what sense is it dishonest to point out that an allegedly "antiwar" activist is in fact in favor of jihadist victory and killing U.S. troops? According to Justin Raimondo & Co. it's both "dishonest" and a "smear" to quote someone and link directly to his own writings. Whatever.

And, yes, it's "transparent" that being against the decision to go to war must be "pro-war." Much more effective to claim to be antiwar but really be prowar by not posting extreme denunciations of the U.S. military. Verrrryyyy clever of me.

And thanks for confirming the ugliness and obsession with sexuality (posting pornography, obsessing about homosexuality). Weird, but again, whatever.

Anon:
Balko has been discredited on this issue...

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19331/

And you have yet again discredited yourself, and your pathetic little "movementarian" cult.

How much does Lew pay you to do his "public relations" for him?

Because if it's more than a bag of chip, Lew really deserves a refund.

More vile comments from Sapienza, found chronicled (and linked to) at the Liberty Belles' site:

Sapienza on soldiers:

ââ?¬Å?So, I should just wait for them to go off and kill a bunch of people and make my existence more dangerous and my economy a bit shakier FIRST, and then watch as 7% of them end up becoming antiwar ââ?¬â? but still statist, of course. No, I prefer to hope they all die now.ââ?¬Â

Sapienza on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence:

ââ?¬Å?All people are absolutely not created equal. Some are born garbage and will remain garbage for the rest of their filthy lives. The bottom rung of American society being attracted at massively higher rates than higher rungs to military service, I can make a pretty general statement saying that the military is full of societyââ?¬â?¢s rejects. Not an absolute one, of course, but like I said, the State doesnââ?¬â?¢t deserve 100% of my discriminatory facilties. Do away with them all. *swipes hand in their general directionââ?¬Â

See the original post:
http://toughlove.catallarchy.net/blog/2005/11/01/from-the-sick-mind-of-jeremy-sapienza/

ââ?¬Å?So, I should just wait for them to go off and kill a bunch of people and make my existence more dangerous and my economy a bit shakier FIRST, and then watch as 7% of them end up becoming antiwar ââ?¬â? but still statist, of course. No, I prefer to hope they all die now.ââ?¬Â

The question I have is: to what extent do the US soldiers that Sapienza wants dead represent a threat to the life and liberty of himself and others? If the threat is real enough, then Sapienza's statements, however crude, may have some justification. Otherwise they do not.

On simple mathematical grounds, Sapienza seems to be in trouble. The ~150,000 US forces in Iraq have probably directly killed at most 20-30 thousand innocent civilians so far. Unless Sapienza has a compelling reason to believe the soldiers will kill another ~120,000 civilians (Iraqi, American, or other) before they retire, then his statements seem unjustified.

"I routinely delete disgusting pornographic postings, which was precisely what was in the comment I deleted."

Then you should delete the link to Andrew Sullivan, because there was nothing pornographic in the comment you deleted except for the very same link Andrew Sullivan has in that post.

By the way, here's the Andrew Sullivan link again (see "Corpses for Porn"): http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_09_18_dish_archive.html#112731228557163689

While Palmer works himself into a daily lather over the bloviations of obscure bloggers, he has yet to comment on the numerous atrocities depicted above.

It's actually not the same link I pulled down, which was an ad for a pornography site. It would help to get your stories straight.

So, here goes. I'm against breaking the law and committing war crimes. The Abu Graib abuses were, without a doubt, war crimes. Not at the level at which the term is normally invoked, but war crimes nonetheless. Those who commit them should be punished. There is a reason for international treaties governing treatment of prisoners, for example, and good reason to enforce them. Of course, it does not follow from that that all actions of U.S. troops are war crimes, nor that Mr. Sapienza is morally justified in looking forward to all of them being killed.

The position that war crimes should be punished is obvious. But for small minds whose entire life is spent on the web, if you've not blogged a thought, you've not thought, for to exist is to blog. And if you've blogged about it, you've "done something" about it. Why bother doing anything else on an issue if you'be posted a blog comment on a personal web log or some other obscure web site? If I measured my life only by what I've written on the web or done in virtual space, it would hardly have been worth living. Fortunately, I have an existence in real space, as well.

The link to the porn site is in Sullivan's article. US soldiers trade pics of dead Iraqis and Afghans for porn. I used the same link that Sullivan uses. You either didn't read Sullivan's post, or you're being dishonest.

How stupid can you be? When I click on a link and I get a full flash of someone's private parts, I delete it. If you want to add a link to a journalist who has a link to it with a little warning about the content, that's fine. But I don't care to have seedy weirdos add links to online porn sites onto this comments page. (And I do delete a fair amount of comment spam for on-line gambling, porno, and home refinancing.) Maybe you're thicker than one might expect, but you'll notice that I didn't delete the link to Andrew Sullivan's blog post.

Now a question for the anonymous porno-poster: what is your position on the atrocities in Uzbekistan and Chechnya? If you've not blogged on them, you must favor them. Why the silence? Naturally, if you've not blogged, you've not even thought about it; either that, or you're in fact in favor of those atrocities.

My concern with the obscure bloggers is that there is a core of racists, anti-American boosters of jihadi monsters, and more lurking in the little nest of people that Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo are doing their best to promote on the web as representative of "libertarianism." That does concern me, as it discredits libertarianism, it discredits the case for liberty, and it discredits the case for non-interventionism to have such people involved as senior editors, "faculty," columnists, and so on. They aren't peripheral people, but people at the heart of antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. In the wider world, they may be obscure, but in those little circles, they are at the heart. And for that reason they deserve some scrutiny, because they are involved in institutions that present a threat to the good name and the effectiveness of libertarians in general.

The "seedy weirdos" posting on that site are US soldiers. Lots of them.

What's funny is your inordinate attention to Rockwell et al. and your complete silence on US atrocities. That's your right, of course, it's just... telling.

Question for Tom and others:

Do you think Lew & Co. are:

1) Really racist enemies of the United States?

2) Pretending or representing to be racist enemies of the US, in order to gain political or financial capital from true racists and terrorist-supporters?

3) Or a mixture of both?

Anon:

If you mean "US atrocities" as in "the US using chemical weapons" -- this story has already been discredited.

Please see Lew immediately to get your new set of talking points. He is paying you good money to help him ruin his name (if that's even possible!!)

For Sam's question --

Does the answer really matter?

Sasha:
It might. You can sometimes help someone with false ideas by speaking them in a rational fashion and showing them their errors.

But if the person is fundementally dishonest, there can be no true debate (so why bother talking to them at all?)

How has the chemical weapons story been discredited? The US Army itself admits it on their own website: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/ProfWriting/2-2AARlow.pdf

And for analysis see
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/009276.html
and http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/009288.html
In case the Army pulls it down, there's a Google cache of the Army's admission here: http://tinyurl.com/7fd33

I can't approve of cheering for U.S. troop deaths; but I can't approve of cheering for insurgent deaths either. They're both groups that have been manipulated by lying leaders into killing innocent people; the deaths on BOTH sides are a tragic waste. (Herbert Spencer would say I should be indifferent to both sets of deaths, but I can't manage that either.)

"Insurgents" who blow up markets are equated with military soliders, acting on orders from elected civilians?

Comments like this make it real easy to blow off most libertarians as either 1) enemies or 2) true-believing cultists.

For shame.

The "just following orders" excuse went out of fashion for a while after Nuremberg. When did it become respectable again?

Like a half-trained circus monkey, poor Roddy can only pull out the cliched nazi-slurs.

A halfwit can tell the difference between a soldier following orders to not target civilians, etc. versus a terrorist, acting under his own accord, who bombs a hotel.

I am in fact a half-trained circus monkey, so I'm doing the best I can. Note, however, that I did not call anyone a Nazi; I simply made what I would hope should be, after Nuremberg, an uncontroversial point -- that following orders does not excuse.Thus I don't much see why it matters whether the terrorists are acting on their own accord (though it actually seems reasonable to bet that they're following orders too; still, why on earth does it make any difference?).As for not targeting civilians -- when one knowingly and willingly kills civilians I have trouble seeing why it should give the civilians much comfort that they weren't "targeted."

By the way, the computer is still holding my original comment for moderation, though it's let all subsequent ones through, so when my original comment appears it'll be out of sequence.

So following orders to not attack civilians is the same as what the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg? The US has no excuse to not attack civilians? You argue like my six-year old nephew.

Please show me the standing orders for the terrorists. I can show the orders for the US military (hint: they are called "Rules of engagment" and are administered by elected civilians).

"knowingly and willingly kills civilians"

An unfounded slur. On Veterans Day, no less. Well nobody accused you of having class (or rational thought.)

Are you indifferent when a policeman is murdered by a criminal? After all, police are authorized to use force, which means they occasionally will accidentally put civilians in harms way. By your monkey-logic, they are the same as a serial killer who willingly murders children.

But keep spewing the talking points and platitudes. It makes your kind so much easier to avoid.

This is in response to Sam's 1:54.

First of all: I was not using the Nazis as an ANALOGY with US troops, I was using them as an argument for a PRINCIPLE, namely, that following orders does not excuse. No similarity between Nazis and US troops was either a premise or a conclusion of my argument. (There are other uses of examples in arguments besides as analogies.)

Second, the orders I was talking about were, OBVIOUSLY, not orders not to target civilians but orders that had as their foreseen-but-not-intended effect killing civilians. It is hardly a "slur" to say that soldiers have been doing this because collateral damage is the official standing policy of the US army. (Hint: it's called "Rules of Engagement.")

Whether the orders are public, and whether those elected are elected or non-elected, civilians or non-civilians, are not obviously relevant matters. Surely one of the lessons of Nuremberg is that the mere fact that an action is commanded by an elected civilian (and Hitler was of course an elected civilian) does not make it permissible.

Lest you get confused again, I am not drawing an ANALOGY between US civilian leaders and Hitler. I am using Hitler as a COUNTEREXAMPLE to, and thus a refutation of, the premise oon which your argument implicitly relies, namely that it's OK to obey the commands of elected civilians.

So far as there is a substantive argument in what you've said, it would seem to be that while it is wrong to target civilians it is okay to cause their deaths in a foreseen-but-not-intended manner. I refer you to my argument against that position here: http://www.libertariannation.org/a/n030l2.html

Incidentally, comparing the THOUSANDS of civilians foreseeably-but-not-intentionally killed or maimed by US troops to policemen "OCCASIONALLY putting civilians in harm's way" strikes me as rather grotesque.

My last post also got held for moderation -- I suspect it's posts with links in them that get held up while posts without links don't. When my post comes through it will make a fuller reply, but in the meantime two brief points: a) The purpose of the Nuremberg reference is not to claim that US troops are equivalent to Nazis but to establish the principle that mere obedience to governmental orders does not excuse; b) it is not a "slur" to say that troops "knowingly and willingly kill civilians" since the permissibility of collateral damage is the officially stated policy of the US army, and is in fact defended by you (Sam) in your very next paragraph.

Sam, I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here, but Rod specifically said above that he's *not* indifferent to the deaths of American soldiers, and he *doesn't* cheer for their deaths.

And the point about Nuremberg seems obvious and correct -- that when a soldier commits a war crime, that soldier is just as morally culpable whether committing the act on his own or following orders. It doesn't appear to me that Rod is speaking about any specific war crimes or any specific soldiers, but speaking in the abstract -- orders from a superior don't nullify individual guilt. This is not to say that any particular American soldiers are guilty, but that they *could* be, which is an unpleasant thought but still an important distinction.

And no, this doesn't mean we should hope for anybody's deaths. Wars like this are a tragedy for everyone who suffers a loss.

A) Mere obedience to governmental orders does not excuse what? Are you unhappy that the US orders its forces to not target civilians? Does this bother you?

B) Are you accusing all US soldiers of committing murder? Or negligence? Let's not forget the reason that the US is shooting in the first place is because there are criminal totalitarians ("insurgents") trying to enslave an entire nation using violence against civilians.

Your argument that "US forces = Iraqi Terrorists" only works if the US is as equally criminal. Just as "Policemen = Serial Killer" only makes sense if both are equally criminal. Is that your assertion?

Or are you asserting anyting? It's more likely you are just spewing propaganda...not debating WITH me, but preaching TO me...which means I am wasting my time.

(I would prefer if you didn't preach your hatred of the US Military on Veterans Day, but as stated earlier, you are not a classy person.)

PS: I don't "cheer" when a cop shoots a serial rapist while he is in the act. And I don't equate the two either.

A) My unhappiness is, obviously, with the orders that permit foreseen-and-willing-but-not-intended killing, not with the orders that forbid intentional killing.

B) Since I have made no such claim as "US forces = Iraqi Terrorists" the rest of what you say is largely irrelevant. But I find it strange that you, and so many people generally, treat arguments from principle as though they were arguments from moral equivalence.

My specific response on the issue of collateral damage is still being held for moderation, probably because it contains a hyperlink.

As for whether I am debating or spewing, I'll leave it to neutral observers to decide which is us is more guilty of substituting insults for argument.

And as for Veterans' Day, originally called Armistice Day, I'd prefer you didn't celebrate war on a day that was originally introduced to celebrate the end of a war.

I'm not celebrating the war. I'm bit cheering anyone's death. But some are celebrating their hatred of the US Military, which is rather sad. This same person is making unfounded assertions and then whining about being called out on them.

I'm not celebrating the war. I'm not cheering anyone's death. But some here are celebrating their hatred of the US Military, which is rather sad. This same person is making unfounded assertions and then whining about being called out on them.

There's some misperceptions here that I think it would be good to correct, so that a more mature discussion can be had on this issue. First of all, it's innacurate to lump Sapienza in with Lew Rockwell or anyone else. His views, whatever their merits may be, are his own. I don't know what the motivation is to lump them together. Second of all, I don't think Sapienza is a racist of any kind. Is it such a radical statement to say that some people have more merits or talents than others? People who join the military are signing up for welfare. I'm a young man myself, and know people who have joined the military, and thats basically their thinking: "I get paid and I don't have to think".

Now, on to the content of Sapienza's posts themselves, which have been largely ignored up to this point except by Mr. Long and Sam. Sapienza says that he hopes US Soldiers will be killed. Now, strictly on the basis of libertarian principles, I don't see any reason to condemn Iraqis who blow up US tanks with IEDs. They're a military force occupying the area and clearly violating libertarian ethics. They are funded by a state's stolen tax money. The fact that they are following orders by democratically elected officials is meaningless.

Here's where I differ from Sapienza: I'm basically indifferent to the deaths of US soldiers, though obviously the loss of life is regrettable. Sapienza's rants about how he cheers the death of US soldiers aren't founded in logic or principle, but in anger and hatred, which I can sympathize with to an extent. I'd like to see Sapienza try to defend his views on a rational basis, though.

"They're a military force occupying the area"

And the Baathists/Islamists are NOT?

A cop stops a guy from raping your sister. Since he was paid in "stolen tax money" his actions were the same as the rapists?

What sickness.

"Is it such a radical statement to say that some people have more merits or talents than others?"

What crap. They are obsessed with skin pigmentation over there, not merit, and you are a fool to deny it.

"People who join the military are signing up for welfare. "

Untrue, even by insane anarcho-libertarian standards. They being paid wages for service. According to anarcho-fiction, even in fantasy-anarcholand there would be paid enforcers.

http://anti-state.com/blog/?p=24

Tom is the weirdo.

It's perfectly normal to call for the deaths of 159,000 US Troops.

King Mob writes, "Now, strictly on the basis of libertarian principles, I don't see any reason to condemn Iraqis who blow up US tanks with IEDs. They're a military force occupying the area and clearly violating libertarian ethics. They are funded by a state's stolen tax money. The fact that they are following orders by democratically elected officials is meaningless."

This line of "reasoning" is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to "libertarian principles."

Frankly, I'm stunned and terrified that anyone can even argue that this sentiment reflects "libertarian principles." The closest I can get to excusing this moron is to chalk it up to a severe error, and move on. I've been involved in libertarianism for about ten years now, but if this is where libertarianism is going, count me out.

Incidentally, King Mob's post highlights precisely why it is important to make sure that those who might not already be familiar with libertarianism understand that Rockwell, Raimondo, and Sapienza (and King Mob) do NOT represent the rest of us.

Do us a favor, King Mob. While the rest of us grapple with the serious issues about how to secure liberty in the Middle East, how to bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry, and all the other tough questions surrounding foreign policy in the post-9/11 world, go back and read "The Ethics of Liberty" one more time, so that even though you'll be worthless in the real world, you can keep convincing yourself that you are the only true libertarian out there.

Remember, transparency is the biggest threat to cults and revolutionary cadres. Their own words and madness are their biggest threats, and they will go to much effort to distort or cover-up their own views.

Keep up the good work Tom. Keep shining that flashlight...

1. Obviously, the Baathists, Islamists, whatever are a rival gang of thugs as well. If a cop stopped someone from raping my sister, I'd thank him wholeheartedly. Where are you getting these bizarre ideas? You think the US military is over there to stop rapists? No, they went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new government with more democratic trappings and less weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, Saddam Hussein was an evil person, I don't mourn his passing. But he's gone now, what's going on now has nothing to do with him.

Your comments here expose you: you couldn't care less about human life. You're no Mother Teresa, my friend. You want all of the insurgents to die. You're just a collectivist who dislikes it when his collective is attacked by the enemy collective. I hope you get eaten by alligators.

2. I've never seen Sapienza make a racist comment. I've seen Lew Rockwell make some, but not Sapienza. Please, find one, I'd be thrilled.

3. Fine, they're being paid wages for service. Oh well, it's irrelevant to my point anyway.

"This line of 'reasoning' is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to 'libertarian principles.'"

Why not?

"Incidentally, King Mob's post highlights precisely why it is important to make sure that those who might not already be familiar with libertarianism understand that Rockwell, Raimondo, and Sapienza (and King Mob) do NOT represent the rest of us."
It would be pretty dumb to think that an individual view reflected everyone elses, wouldn't it? Want to hear what I think about them? Rockwell is a bigot. Raimondo is a partisan who loves to lie and distort information. Sapienza does the same thing.

"Do us a favor, King Mob. While the rest of us grapple with the serious issues about how to secure liberty in the Middle East, how to bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry, and all the other tough questions surrounding foreign policy in the post-9/11 world, go back and read 'The Ethics of Liberty' one more time, so that even though you'll be worthless in the real world, you can keep convincing yourself that you are the only true libertarian out there."

Oh, I'm so sorry Greg! Sorry to walk in on this salon of philosophical inquiry where you grapple with these heady issues, painstakingly working to climb the rocky crags of the mountains of evidence in order to bear down the sacred fruit of knowledge, and piss in your drink. What a miscreant I am!

You said I should reread the Ethics of Liberty. Well, I already read it once, hell of a book isn't it? Check out chapter 24! That crazed radical Rothbard refers to the state as a "criminal organization". Quite similar to the language I used in my earlier comments, isn't it!

"Remember, transparency is the biggest threat to cults and revolutionary cadres. Their own words and madness are their biggest threats, and they will go to much effort to distort or cover-up their own views.

Keep up the good work Tom. Keep shining that flashlight..."

Yes, he covered up his views by posting them on the internet with his name attached. As for cultists, maybe he's a Templar, you should torture it out of him that he's really a sodomite. Oh right, we already all know that too!

With liberty comes responsibility. I, for example, always take responsibility for my own actions and my own thoughts (which is why I will always put my own name, email and website whenever I make any comments).

Do the writers above take responsibility for their thoughts? Some do. Some, like so many posts that I have looked at, are rude, childish and irresponsible, both in their thinking and in their attitudes.

Tom, for whatever his detractors proclaim, takes responsibility for his actions AND his thoughts, and puts them out in the open for all to see. He's an activist and quite willing to jump up on any soapbox that he has to speak to the world about his beliefs on liberty in all aspects of his personal and public life. For that I commend him more heartily than those who hide anonymously or pseudonymously.

Sapienza, at least, doesn't hide under cover, and for that I am glad. Let people who are interested know who he is and what he thinks about killing people.--and be condemned for it!

I have opposed war my entire adult life, from the Viet Nam War to today's cruelty. I neither support war against some criminal in another country, nor would I ever support making war against our kids in this one.

I have seen too many who signed up with the State Guards with the expectation of having to do a weekend for college in the future to believe that they are killers who should be killed. Our military has never been designed for seiges, nor long-term occupation. The continuation of our occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is an aberrant abomination contrary to American tradition and will not last.

It is the libertarian responsibility to keep the flame of libertarian principles alive for all to see and to experience. It is our responsibility to constantly extend and expand those ideas into all areas of our lives--personal, social and political.

I've worked in mediation for too many years not to realize that there are viable, reasonable alternatives. Google on VOM and VORP sometime. Look into alternative dispute resolution. There are entire industries building up and many already long established which provide tools for resolving international problems.

The best to all of you.

Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/

I'm going to vainly assume the above comment is at least party targeted at me. I'm King Mob, quite well known. Just google me! Anyways, who cares who I am? Deal with my arguments themselves.

"This line of 'reasoning' is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to 'libertarian principles.'"

"Why not?"

Because there is no libertarian principle that says it's ok for homicidal maniacs to blow people up, or kidnap and decapitate them, merely because they're part of a military that happens to be in a particular geographic area that you'd rather control instead.

If in March 2003 Iraq was a modern libertarian utopia, had no terrorist ties, and was obviously not a threat to the stability of the middle east or the U.S., and we had "invaded" their country with the intent of taking natural resources and conquering their people, then it would be justified to repel our military presence.

However, it is more than obvious that the "insurgents" who are killing children, beheading foreigners, and exploding bombs on roads to kill soldiers are NOT, in any sense, fighting to repel an unjust invasion. Rather, they are fighting to disrupt a process that would, if left uninterrupted, yield an outcome they find evil, to wit, democracy.

Whether or not the war was justified or not is not the question here. The question is whether it is right--under libertarian principles--for madmen to kill soldiers merely because those soldiers are occupying the physical space that the madmen want for themselves.

Oh, I forgot, though. The soldiers are "funded by a state's stolen tax money." I guess that means that "libertarian principles" would allow any of us to set up car bombs all the way down COnstitution Ave. here in D.C. and watch as thousands of government workers are killed. AFter all, D.C. is "occupied territory," right, Mob? Didn't Lew Rockwell remind us about how much freer we'd be if terrorists struck my city? After all, the state is just an organized criminal gang. In your world it would be ok to kill all the bureaucrats and government officials in D.C., because they're part of a gang, and theyre funded by "stolen" tax money.

That, frankly, is insane. It's murder, and it's not libertarianism.

Greg = Neocon

I had no idea you were so controversial Tom. You really blew Jeremy's skirt up. Good work.

Kevin

Jeremy's responds (he can't respond here since Tom won't allow his posts)
http://anti-state.com/blog/?p=25

"Whether or not the war was justified or not is not the question here. The question is whether it is right--under libertarian principles--for madmen to kill soldiers merely because those soldiers are occupying the physical space that the madmen want for themselves."

And it's right for soldiers to kill madmen that are occupying the physical space they want for themselves? So what's the difference between them? One is a state funded army, and one escaped the psych ward?

I've just read Mr. Sapienza's responses to Tom's post and the comments therein. Apparently we were all wrong about Jeremy...he truly is a life-loving peacenik. Silly me. How could I miss this message in his "A Grim Milestone � 159,000 US Troops Remain Alive in Iraq" post. If I missed his fuzzy life-embracing mantra there, it should have been lovably obvious when he wrote, "That's 2000 less future homeless junkie serial-killer rapist petty thief semi-crippled nutjobs to be subsidized/suffered by the productive people of these United States." But now that he's explained it all, it makes total sense. Sorry Jeremy for the mix up.

Tom won't let Jeremy post here, but I'm sure he forgives you, Dan.

I have to say that - having read all of the posts - Jeremy Sapienza is even more disgusting than I had thought when I read this piece. Whew. What a piece of work. What a disgrace for "Antiwar".Com and others to be tied up with someone like that.

fuck all you dirtbag murderers

IT's worth noting that Sapienza wrote an extensive rebuttal to Palmer, located here:

http://tinyurl.com/d82jf

An eloquent response, just the sort of "logic" and "reasoning" one has come to expect from such quarters. But really, which is the "murderer": the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?; the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops? Perhaps the best response to the Jeremy Sapienzas and the Justin Raimondos is to ignore them, since their writing style is evidence of a deep desire for attention, rather like a small child's use of naughty words among adults, but I do understand why Tom Palmer periodically exposes them to inform the rest of us of what their real agenda is.

"An eloquent response, just the sort of 'logic' and 'reasoning' one has come to expect from such quarters. But really, which is the 'murderer': the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?; the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops?"

Democracy has nothing to do with libertarianism.

If my analysis of Balko's position wasn't convincing enough, here it is straight from the horse�s mouth:

"...let me put about a thousand miles of distance between myself and the opinions wrongly attributed to me in the comments of this Tom Palmer post. The Sapienza post Palmer links to is disgusting. Holding U.S. troops to a high moral standard is one thing. Wishing them dead is something entirely f***ing different. There is no -- zero -- common ground between my position on the war and Sapeinza's, other than that we both apparently wish the U.S. weren't in Iraq."

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025849.php#025849

"But really, which is the 'murderer': the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?;"

The latter. Since the troops are killers, cheering when they die is pro-life; wanting them to remain alive is pro-death. So simple.

"the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists,"

Wow I'm not sure how many more times Jeremy could have said he does not favor a victory for the terrorists and Ba'athists. You people never stop the lie and smear machine. Breathtaking.

"or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops?"

And then you woke up. The violent occupation of Iraq against the will of the vast majority of its inhabitats will not encourage peace or reconciliation and certainly not (how laughable!) democracy. The resistance (note the distinction between "foreign fighter" types and regular, fed-up Iraqis - if you will permit yourself a minute of honesty) is fighting the US occupation, and the terrorists are taking advantage of both the occupation and the resistance to cause chaos and embroil the US military in Iraq for years to come. And that's EXACTLY what al-Qaeda AND the neocons want. Convenient!

http://invisibleinternational.blogspot.com/2005/11/palmer-vs-sapienza.html

Probably the takeaway lesson here is not to overextend your arguments. A better way to respond to Sapienza would have been to paraphrase Tolkien:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Well, I'm back from Portland, Oregon (a long trip by itself, made longer by delays and endless time on the runway in Chicago). What a lot of comments above. I've now read through them, including the linked ones, and I don't find the defenses of Mr. Sapienza's opinions and his character very convincing. In his defense on his website he reveals himself to be utterly lacking in moral and intellectual seriousness. And that's a mild way of putting it.

(On a side note, it's a shame, Mr. Sapienza, that my comment spam filter evidently holds up comments that contain lots and lots of links in them, evidently on the grounds that they are probably viagra ads. I've just found your attempted comment....79 comments back on the list of comments, which, at 15 per page, is a lot of pages back. It's a shame that it's fed your paranoia that a friend sent me an email challenging my claim that you were listed as a Lew Rockwell columnist when, mirabile dictu!, you had made that claim in a posting that I had not seen because it was held up by the comment-spam filter. I'd post your comment now, but it's all on your website anyway, to which the comments above offer plentiful links [had I been afraid of engaging your sort of character and had I been actively monitoring the comments and aware that you had tried to post a comment, I suspect that I would have deleted any comments linking to it, since...well, you get the idea, but do enjoy your paranoia and this little bit of attention as much as you can]. So I hope that fair-minded people will read what you've written and make up their own minds about you and about the organizations that would hire you as a Senior Editor.)

I think that the issues laid out above are fairly clear to intelligent people. A number of points that I might make have already been made by other commenters above, so I'll instead turn my attention to other matters, such as preparing my lecture notes for my upcoming talks in Iraq, where I hope that I can make some contribution to the attainment of peace, freedom, and justice. So, since the issues have been aired above and there are links to the further vulgar rantings of Mr. Sapienza, I'll bring this discussion thread to a close....unless anyone really, really has something new to add.