1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6133/a-strange-way-to-promote-freedom/

A Strange Way to Promote Freedom

January 12, 2007 by

Every stated ambition of the US has been turned on its head. Instead of democracy, Iraq gets military domination prior to Islamic dictatorship. Instead of punishing and thereby discouraging terrorism, the Iraq calamity has radicalized a generation. Instead of bringing peace and freedom, the US has brought instability, bloodshed, and unending upheaval.

Even if you believe that Bush was only pursuing a personal vendetta against Saddam, the US has managed to do what would have been unthinkable five years ago: made Saddam a folk hero for those looking for martyrdom in the jihad. Whereas many in the Islamic world once loathed his secularism, Bush’s bumbling show trial and lynching have turned Saddam into an icon. FULL ARTICLE

{ 14 comments }

David White January 12, 2007 at 10:28 am

“Teaching Bush about subtleties such as diplomacy and trade is like telling a box turtle to write a novel.”

Thanks, Lew, for this latest entry to my Favorite Quotes file.

And ironically, we may have the Bumbler in Chief to thank for hastening the arrival of our long-delayed Financial Reckoning Day. For however painful it is going to be, it will be less so the sooner it arrives.

W Baker January 12, 2007 at 10:51 am

Well said, Mr. Rockwell. But, as you know better than most, it’s not just Dubya who is the mad boy king. He is surrounded and cheered by equally insane courtiers.

Compare V. Hanson’s article yesterday to Rockwell’s.
Following Hanson’s prescription, we will be victorious in Iraq, if we can by force extend the “Green Zone” in Baghdad into surrounding neighborhoods.

How mad does one have to be to posit that force frees a people and more force frees more people? I’m no psychologist, but I suspect that the only other people who think this way are rapists. In their demented minds, they equate the act of force and involuntary submission to some sort of marital bliss.

Mark January 12, 2007 at 11:44 am

The Neo Con vision as expressed by Francis Fukuyama in “The End of History” is that Democratic institutions are the best man can hope for. Which may be true, however, when applied has 2 noticeable short comings.

The first of which is that history has shown that under any system of government or an social system it is always the case that it is a question of who will rule just as it is what will rule. Just take a gander down there at Venezuela. This will always be the case as there is a biological imperative.

The second problem is the notion that government institutions can achieve legitimacy without what Roger Scruton has called pre political loyalties of a territorial and national kind. In other words, something that we call “We”. Notice the words “We the people…

Of course, Lew Rockwell can fantasize that the words should have been “I the people… because the very institutions that arose out “We” have bestowed on him that latitude. Then again Lew may get his Libertarian Utopian Dream when multi-culturalism and global market places finally dissolve the Nation State. The very institution that made law legitimate in the eyes of most of the people to begin with.

You might say I being rather unfair of Lew. Oh, take a look at this quote:
Many people around the world, actually most people, have been convinced for some time that the US is being run by a power-mad lunatic

I got news for you Lew. In a global economy the US Nation State is not legitimate. US reprisals in foreign lands will make as much sense as US reprisals against the city of Kansas City for attacks in New York.

It’s kind of ironic when you think about it. Lew and George probably live in the same ivory tower together. The Tower of Babble On.

Robert Brazil January 12, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Mark,

Maybe I’m alone in this, but I don’t understand what you just wrote, or what it has to do with Mr. Rockwell’s article.

Curran Kemp January 12, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Great article.

I did hear from the public radio stations that, now, all u.s. private contractors operating in Iraq will come under the legal control of the U.S. military law. One question I had, “when did these private citizen sign up to become part of the military?”

Mark January 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Robert, the use of military force to achieve a political outcome has nothing to do with the US failure in Iraq.

I gave you the 2 reasons why the ideological objective is not possible in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. Neither, appeared in Lew’s article. Just the same old tired screed about social planning.

Bush had every right to use force in Iraq. When Sadaam refused to jump, force was necessary. Only, it should have been the old fashioned gun boat diplomacy along the lines of Daisy Cutters as opposed to laser guided munitions, starting with Takrit one town at a time.

And another thing, diplomacy is a bunch of hog wash. Especially when the goal of every governing body around the world with the exception of the Anglo nations is to de-nationize the United States and bring it’s territory into some sort of international framework.

Kevin January 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Mark,

I believe Robert (who is not alone) is having a hard time with your statements because you aren’t being descriptive. You are requiring too much to be read between the lines.

“Bush had every right to use force in Iraq.”

You must be joking.

Anarchistscum January 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Mark,
Im a bit confused at your rhetoric because you just bounced to many different subjects. Well I’ll focus on one:
“The second problem is the notion that government institutions can achieve legitimacy without what Roger Scruton has called pre political loyalties of a territorial and national kind. In other words, something that we call “We”. Notice the words “We the people…

Of course, Lew Rockwell can fantasize that the words should have been “I the people… because the very institutions that arose out “We” have bestowed on him that latitude. Then again Lew may get his Libertarian Utopian Dream when multi-culturalism and global market places finally dissolve the Nation State. The very institution that made law legitimate in the eyes of most of the people to begin with.”

It seems like your taking a critical eye to Libertarian goals such as market anarchy. Let me point out that their is nothing “Utopian” about markets at all. In fact markets are the ones that brought about trade and commerce in the first place. I dont remember a time when governments have ever been productive. Also their is nothing legitimate about government in the first place. Government has never created property in the first place or asked each indivdual for permission if they would like to be under the umbrella of “protection”.

There is no “we”, I am not connected to you or anyone else in New York for example. “We” is not a mystical concept that smashes all ethical questions. These institutions that are based on “we” never brought about freedom in the first place. It was the loss of power on these “we” instututions that brought about any sort of freedom in the first place. Take that to its logical conclusion and see where you end up at…

Mark January 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm

There is no “we”, I am not connected to you or anyone else in New York for example. “We” is not a mystical concept that smashes all ethical questions. These institutions that are based on “we” never brought about freedom in the first place. It was the loss of power on these “we” instututions that brought about any sort of freedom in the first place. Take that to its logical conclusion and see where you end up at…

This is a fundemental difference of opinion which is fair. I just hope those employed in the service of defending the territory we both share don’t believe it, as well as the citizens of my local area of New York who I hope will abide by civil laws.

Anarchistscum January 12, 2007 at 6:24 pm

“This is a fundemental difference of opinion which is fair. I just hope those employed in the service of defending the territory we both share don’t believe it, as well as the citizens of my local area of New York who I hope will abide by civil laws.”

Defending the territory from who? Collectivised defense I suppose could work if it were in communties and towns that everybody voluntary came into. My taboo is that collectivisation of defense is under the wing of the State and not given to people and local groups. People can defend their own property or form together in groups to defend without the might of the State. Thats true voluntary defense. Last time I checked not everyone in New York is part of a “we”. There is people of different cultures, languages, ideas,religions, and races. To lump everybody under the same heading is a travesty. Thats the kind of thinking that has brought about strife and dispair in many parts of this country. If people want to seperate each other as groups and individuals then it is there right.

Being civil and courteous would never vanish if the idea of national collectivism is destroyed. People are civil because of market transactions, mutual benefit, and morals. If people could never be civil because of those concepts then I hardly see how State sponsored laws can prevent people from running amuck.

Hard To Swallow January 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Good stuff!

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe sees
no right to property…
.

T.G.G.P January 12, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Who says democracy and military domination are mutually exclusive? Most Iraqis are Shiites who are angry at the Sunnis for all the years they’ve been kicked around. There’s nothing undemocratic about them electing other Shiites who will return the favor. Hopefully the ethnic cleansing and partitioning will be quick.

TokyoTom January 14, 2007 at 10:08 pm

A great article by Lew, but this deserves much more emphasis: “The problem is that there is a huge machine running full speed and it is benefiting too many people. Tens of billions, hundreds of billions, are landing in the pockets of well-connected elites, and they want to keep the party going as long as possible.”

And readers should note that, as noted elsewhere, “All indications are that the lunatics in charge of our government have decided to attack Iran, and sooner rather than later.” http://www.apostropher.com/blog/archives/003595.html

How do we stop this blind, destructive and self-interested party?

Christopher Hettinger January 16, 2007 at 9:04 pm

This is the same situation that Iran went through… It is clear that the dictatorship you are referring to is democracy. An Islamic Democracy. Not a liberal democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.

The Double D’s go pretty well together. Democracy and Dictator. Though I would prefer a liberal dictator over a Democratic regime anyday.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: