SUBSCRIBE:
Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2018/11. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Those Who Demand Freedom Most Declare the U.S. Military Mass Murderers

by
Posted on September 18 2010 1:00 pm
A life-long conservative Reagan Girl and conservative feminist, Lisa holds a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Lisa is a staunch, unapologetic, Christian supporter and defender of Israel, who considers herself a spiritual Jew. Lisa resides in CT with her family and assortment of rescued pets.

Pages: 1 2

Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post
It’s no secret many libertarians oppose preemptive strikes against enemies. Libertarians are critical of war and U.S. military stationing in nations we are at war with, considering that a form of occupation.  Radical libertarians, however (leftists who support and demand the protection of the Second Amendment and free markets, claiming they believe in freedom), define fighting for freedom by means of war, as “legalized mass-murder” “committed by governments,” because “War is nothing but ‘breaking windows’ on a massive scale.”

Had America entered World War II earlier and legally broken Hitler’s windows, perhaps millions of Jews would never have been illegally and inhumanely mass murdered.

Radical libertarian author J. H. Huebert of Lewrockwell.com disagrees. Huebert’s latest book, Libertarianism Today, claims all libertarians believe war is “legalized,” “unjust theft” and “slavery” that “forces people to fight and die.”

Now I understand the definition of an all volunteer military.

The radical Lew Rockwellians believe that American presidents force men to murder others against their will:

[H]istorically, the U.S. has used conscription—legalized slavery—to force people to fight and die.  In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries’ affairs…Historically, war didn’t necessarily involve killing innocents on a large scale. War was always terrible and undesirable, but by the eighteenth century, Europe had developed rules of ‘civilized warfare,’ and wars were generally fought only between armies, with civilians off-limits.  From the libertarian perspective, this type of war is not so much of a problem; if people choose to engage in mortal combat with each other, that may be foolish, self-destructive, and even immoral, but it’s not aggression in the libertarian sense. (Of course, those wars still have objectionable ends – generally, the right to dominate a particular territory – but at least the means aren’t so offensive.)

To claim war doesn’t always involve killing and enslaving civilians ignores the Roman Empire’s conquering nations through brute force and Islam’s 400 year invasion of the Middle East and Europe prior to the Crusades that involved mass murdering and enslaving civilians.  Not to mention the last 1,400 years of worldwide Islamic terror.

Heubert’s “civilized” eighteenth century warfare argument justifies the leftist French Revolution’s beheading of aristocracy, civilians, Catholic Church clergy, and all who disagreed with Robespierre’s leftist Jacobean political policies.

During the eighteenth century War of Independence, civilians were not off limits to British commanders.  Americans were captured and imprisoned, homes burned, and citizens were hanged or shot by British troops.  How civilized!

Historically, war involves brutality. But Huebert believes uncivilized warfare began in the twentieth century: continue reading on page 2 …

Be Sociable, Share!

Continue reading page: 1 2

12 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2018 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry