1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6901/an-overview-of-criticisms-of-randy-barnett-on-iraq-and-war/

An Overview of Criticisms of Randy Barnett on Iraq and War

July 27, 2007 by

By now there’s been a great deal of libertarian criticism and discussion of Randy Barnett‘s controversial Wall Street Journal editorial, Libertarians and the War (subtitled: “Ron Paul doesn’t speak for all of us.”), including:

There are more, including one by the execrable Tom Palmer, but I won’t sully Mises.org by linking to it. Barnett has replied to some of these in Antiwar Libertarians and the Reification of the State and Libertarian Theories of War.

Barnett’s critics have made a lot of good points. Sheldon Richman, in Ahistorical “Libertarian” Warmongers, for example, wrote:

I think this gets at an underlying flaw in Barnett’s case. He, like others, approaches libertarianism in a hyper-rationalistic, ahistorical way. If in his view a policy position cannot be reached deductively from libertarian first principles, he concludes that libertarianism per se has nothing to say about it. But his method is wrong. Libertarianism isn’t purely an a priori theory. It’s a set of insights about human beings and a unique historical institution — the state — insights produced by centuries of experience. Libertarianism properly conceived is an interplay of theory and history, neither ever losing sight of the other. It is, as Chris Sciabarra notes, dialectical.

Barnett curiously combines his simplistic a priori approach to libertarianism with a vulgar dilettantism regarding current events void of detailed knowledge about the U.S. government’s conduct in the world for at least the last 50 years. That is what allows him to blithely proclaim that there is no libertarian position on a war against a country that posed no threat to the American people and that was run by a former agent of American presidents. That’s why he takes George Bush’s pronouncements and policy seriously.

And why are libertarian such as Barnett comfortable with this dubious methodology with respect to foreign policy? Because not far below the surface, they are nationalists. The nation is still a special unit of emotional value — particularly the U.S. There’s an implicit theory of exceptionalism here too. That accounts for their lack of interest in the history of U.S. intervention.

Fascinating point about their “implicit theory of exceptionalism” accounting for “their lack of interest in the history of U.S. intervention.”

A few other comments on Barnett’s piece. He writes: “Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is ‘no.’” So … the obvious question tht occurs to the reader: where does he stand? It’s strange that he argues that a libertarian can still be in favor of war, and in particular the Iraq War, without ever explicitly acknowledging he is (was?) a proponent of the war. As Barnett made clear in a September 2003 blogpost on National Review’s The Corner, Libertarians Against The War,

Some libertarians I respect enormously oppose the war in Iraq. It was only a matter of time, I suppose, that I might be criticized by them for supporting it. The delay comes from the fact that I have not published anything in support of the war, but have confined myself in print to posting links on to articles by those who have. … I am a libertarian and Hanson is a conservative so we do not agree about everything. But unlike some libertarians, many on the Left, some Republicans and many Democrats, I do think we are in a defensive war and have been since we were attacked on 9/11. I further think that the battle for Iraq is a legitimate part of that overall war….

He also writes, “Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed.” Does this mean that Barnett was in 2003 in favor of the war but has now changed his mind? If so, why not admit this mistake? If not, does this mean he is still in favor of the war even though he is “disappointed” (but not shocked!) that it has gone so poorly? And what does the “though hardly shocked” comment mean–that he realized the war might be a disaster at its inception but supported it anyway?

Barnett goes on:

The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central “plan,” but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach–and promptly replace its military commanders as President Lincoln did repeatedly–when it became clear that its tactics were not working.

What is bothersome about this passage is its implicit endorsement of Lincoln, and his war and tactics. As Raimondo notes, according to Barnett, “[a]ll that went wrong [in Iraq] was that the implementation of the neocons’ grandiose vision was botched by a president who wasn’t enough like Lincoln – you know, the famously “libertarian” president who jailed his political opponents, banned antiwar newspapers, and burned Atlanta to the ground.”

Another troublesome comment: Barnett writes that

pro-invasion libertarians … are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war–as Ron Paul does–and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war.

Perhaps it was not intended to be taken this way, but Barnett appears to imply here that anti-invasion libertarians such as Ron Paul are not “rooting for success in Iraq”. I am sure Paul would vigorously deny this, and indeed that he is also “rooting for success in Iraq”, while remaining skeptical of the prospects of such success. (Healy makes a related point about the “rooting for success” comment.)

Also: “To a libertarian, any effort at “nation building” seems to be just another form of central planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended consequences and the danger of blowback.” But after acknowledging the danger of blowback, Barnett does not address this at all in the context of Iraq.

Another problem: the fence-sitting and abstract nature of Barnett’s piece. An acquaintance of mine wrote me that he was disappointed in Barnett’s piece for several reasons, including:

His much more fence-sitting piece is in some obscure blog. If you have strong views and you print them in the WSJ, fine. But, if you have tentative views, you put them in a blog, or in a scholarly journal, grow them into strong views, and then publish them in high-circulation journals (newspapers, magazines, etc.). Also, I tire of abstract discussions about war in general. Let’s discuss THIS war in particular. That’s why I liked Raimondo’s piece — he talked about specifics. For instance, talking about a specific war, it is absolutely OK (contra Barnett) to argue simultaneously that a war is illegal according to the UN and that the UN should be abolished. Hell, libertarians cite the GAO all the time while criticizing the fedgov, or assert states’ rights against the fedgov when we know good and well that states don’t have rights. Duh.

This problem is alluded to above when I noted that in the WSJ piece he does not acknowledge he, at least in 2003, was in favor of the war; and he does not say whether he is currently in favor of the war. He argues that one can be a pro-war, and pro-Iraq War, libertarian, but whether one should be, or whether he is, he leaves open or to inference.

I’ve noted a similarly curious stance by Barnett in the past. Despite his anarchism, for example (see, e.g., his 1977 JLS article Whither anarchy? Has Robert Nozick justified the state?; and his advocacy of a “polycentric” legal order in his Structure of Liberty book, which I discussed in this review), and his admiration for Spooner (he runs LysanderSpooner.org), he wants to find a way that the state can be legitimate. As he wrote in his 2003 article, Constitutional Legitimacy:

Lysander Spooner was perhaps the earliest American constitutional theorist to recognize that an argument based on hypothetical consent “existing only in theory” is required to respect the rights of the individual because everyone cannot be presumed – in the absence of express or actual consent – to have given up their rights: “Justice is evidently the only principle that everybody can be presumed to agree to, in the formation of government.” In the absence of actual consent, a government that protects the rights of all “is the only government which it is practicable to establish by the [theoretical] consent of all the governed; for an unjust government must have victims, and the victims cannot be supposed to give their consent.”

In sum, an argument based on theoretical or hypothetical consent is inadequate to justify overriding background rights. To the contrary, for a constitution to be legitimate on the basis of hypothetical (as opposed to actual) consent, it must be shown that such a constitution is consistent with the background rights of the individual. In the next Part, I shall consider an alternative conception of constitutional legitimacy that explains both how laws can bind the citizenry in conscience in the absence of consent and why, because consent is lacking, the lawmaking power of government must be limited. Indeed, I argue that, in the absence of unanimous consent, there is a duty to obey the law only when the legislature’s powers are limited.

Now, it is curious enough that an anarchist wants to find a way to argue that the state’s decrees “can bind the citizenry in conscience”. But what I have always found striking about this position of Barnett’s is that it’s not really relevant to our current government since it does not have or abide by a sufficiently “libertarian” constitution. That is, Barnett ought to argue that theoretically he can imagine how a state could adopt enough limits so that its laws have a certain amount of legitimacy, but that our current state is not legitimate and there is, in fact, no duty to obey the state’s laws. It seems that if he took this approach, however, his entire “presumption of liberty” approach would lost most of its relevance. It would be one thing to advocate that a near-minimal state that has realistic chance of being a limited state adopt this approach to make it and its constitution “legitimate”. But a mammoth state like ours is not legitimate, is not limited, and would not be even if its courts tried to adopt some version of the “presumption of legitimacy” test–can anyone really believe government judges would ever apply this presumption in a seriously libertarian way? As libertarian attorney J.H. Huebert notes,

The Ninth Amendment and the Commerce Clause are not, as he says, “lost”—they have been in the Constitution all along. Courts have distorted these provisions not because judges have not had Randy Barnett to explain their true meaning. Courts have done so because they are part of the very federal government Randy Barnett seeks to limit. In general, judges and those who appoint them have no reason to want to limit government. … [N]othing short of a libertarian revolution would be necessary for courts to begin doing what Mr. Barnett wants them to. How could such a revolution come about? Not by educating people about the Constitution, but by educating them about liberty. And any good libertarian education reveals that “limited government” is impossible.

(This is part of an interesting exchange between Barnett and Huebert: Huebert’s Book Review of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty by Randy E. Barnett; Barnett’s Libertarianism and Legitimacy: A Reply to Huebert; and Huebert’s No Duty to Obey the State: Reply to Barnett .)

Note this curious comment by Barnett, in the context of a discussion about the US invasion of Iraq:

Would [Huebert] deny that if the U.S. Constitution, properly interpreted, did reliably enforce individual rights when followed (a contestable claim), then the existence of such a legal system anywhere in the world would be a good thing on libertarian grounds, however it came about? [emphasis added]

Here Barnett, if I am reading him right, implies that (a) the current US government and Constitution-as-interpreted are not legitimate; and (b) it is not even clear–it is “contestable”–that the U.S. Constitution would be legitimate (“reliably enforce individual rights”) even if it were properly interpreted and followed! I find this astounding! Why does Barnett seek to legitimate the US government and Constitution when he admits it’s not legitimate now and might not be even if the Constitution were properly interpreted? And why would he argue, or leave open the possibility that, the admittedly failed Iraq War might be legitimate, even though it’s waged by a currently illegitimate state, to impose some Islamaphied constitution that is not even as good as our own illegitimate Constitution?

{ 19 comments }

Black Bloke July 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Why does Barnett seek to legitimate the US government and Constitution when he admits it’s not legitimate now and might not be even if the Constitution were properly interpreted?

Well it’s pretty obvious that he does believe that the Constitution when properly interpreted reliably enforces individual rights, and thus is legitimate. He mentions the possibility that it doesn’t only to acknowledge the existence of a dispute.

And why would he argue, or leave open the possibility that, the admittedly failed Iraq War might be legitimate, even though it’s waged by a currently illegitimate state, to impose some Islamaphied constitution that is not even as good as our own illegitimate Constitution?

He doesn’t want to get kicked out of the Republican social clubs.

Black Bloke July 27, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Why does Barnett seek to legitimate the US government and Constitution when he admits it’s not legitimate now and might not be even if the Constitution were properly interpreted?

Well it’s pretty obvious that he does believe that the Constitution when properly interpreted reliably enforces individual rights, and thus is legitimate. He mentions the possibility that it doesn’t only to acknowledge the existence of a dispute.

And why would he argue, or leave open the possibility that, the admittedly failed Iraq War might be legitimate, even though it’s waged by a currently illegitimate state, to impose some Islamaphied constitution that is not even as good as our own illegitimate Constitution?

He doesn’t want to get kicked out of the Republican social clubs.

Darren July 27, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Nice overview. I remember reading Barnett’s recent WSJ piece and thinking, “Randy Barnett doesn’t speak for all of us!” I haven’t read a lot of his work in depth. He may have been a libertarian anarchist back in the 1970s, but he sure doesn’t seem to be one now. From the various statements of his you’ve quoted, he appears to be very conflicted about libertarianism and the nature of the state.

The way I see it, the state is coercion and aggression incarnate–it’s very existence as a consumer of coercively acquired wealth and monopolizer of ‘legitimate’ force is unjust. So it must be at least as (if not more) unjust for such an entity to initiate force against any person or group of people.

Black Bloke July 27, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Double post! Stupid new host!

ktibuk July 28, 2007 at 4:55 am

This is the dillema of the statist libertarian (if there is such a thing)

Trying to make sense of a government action.

Give it up you can not.

I know because I was a statist libertarian.

You can not get rid of paradoxes while still clinging to the necessity of the state.

Libertarianism can only make sense or judgements of the actions of the individual. Not some organized crime outfit.

ktibuk July 28, 2007 at 11:00 am

“… approaches libertarianism in a hyper-rationalistic, ahistorical way. If in his view a policy position cannot be reached deductively from libertarian first principles, he concludes that libertarianism per se has nothing to say about it. But his method is wrong.”

Also there is no hyper-rationalistic way about Barnett. On the contrary he is very irrational.

Where does he jump from individual to the state during his apriori reasoning, then support some war the state starts?

9/11 wasnt an attack against “America”, at least not according to an indivualist which a libertarian must be.

It was an attack on the individuals who died and were directly hurt.

As I said if you are a statist libertarian you are bound to tlak nonsense more than once in a while.

Ray G July 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Is there ever a case for war?

I’m no fan of Barnett, but I’ve always felt stuck somewhere in between on the war issue. The political machine’s reasoning for war is of course flawed and needs no new explanation here.

But ever since I first began reading into classical liberalism, I’ve always flinched at the issue of war.

From what I’ve seen and read, most libertarians would say that there is of course a place for actually defending the country. However, such military actions would only take place at the last possible second which history proves is a bad idea.

That’s not a blanket arugment for preemptive war, but at the same time, we shouldn’t be constrained in defense by a rigid set of “rules.” I whole heartedly want to live and let live, but if my neighbor is daily encroaching on my property, threatening my children, damaging my yard at the edges, et cetera, eventually I’m going to do something about it.

The Utopian response of the pure libertarian view is that if I just mind my own business, everyone else will mind theirs as well. But that’s just not realistic.

Now excuse me. . . I’m going to go stomp a mudhole in my neighbor. Not really, I have great neighbors.

Ray G July 28, 2007 at 5:26 pm

9/11 wasnt an attack against “America”, at least not according to an indivualist which a libertarian must be.

That is the same extreme – and thus inaccurate – definition of an individualist that the Left uses in their arguments against individualism in general.

Anthony July 28, 2007 at 6:24 pm

“The Utopian response of the pure libertarian view is that if I just mind my own business, everyone else will mind theirs as well. But that’s just not realistic. ”

Nowhere do we say that. That is a pacifist response. Rather, the pure libertarian will say that it is costly not to do so, and that solutions to problems of encroachment can be dealt with by the market.

TGGP July 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I have not heard of Randy Barnett renouncing his anarchism, so I don’t know if it is accurate to call him a “statist libertarian”.

It didn’t seem to me that Randy thought the Constitution was legitimate. His writings said that it could only be legitimate without universal consent if it didn’t violate any rights. If you have the right not to be taxed, then even a government in accordance with the Constitution is illegitimate.

Since I don’t really believe in rights, I don’t have to worry about that stuff. You might be thinking “But aren’t you a Stirnerite, and they are never minarchists but anarchists like Saint Max, Ben Tucker and Tak Kak?”. However, Max never actually referred to himself as an anarchist, and Sidney Parker explains here and here that a Stirnerite egoist CANNOT be an anarchist!

Ray G July 29, 2007 at 12:30 am

Well, the bulk of the libertarian movement tends more towards pacifism, though I certainly don’t believe it applies to every self-identified libertarian.

Market solutions for encroachment means what? Sounds nice in theory, but in real world practice market based solutions to military aggression are useless unless it is enacted very early on so as to keep the military power from ever getting to the point where it can pose a threat.

Not a good plan for national defense.

Dain July 29, 2007 at 1:18 am

TG,

I read the link. So apparently, according to Egoism properly understood, if I call upon the state to compel your publications of Egoist philosophy to cease and desist – or in fact question your “right” (a “spook” of course) to speak about egoism in a forum such as a state park – then I’m simply taking of advantage of an archist situation I deem to be beneficial to me. Totally kosher.

How is this not simply might makes right? After all, even so called “property in one’s body” is an example of “clerico-libertarianism” is it not?

“To hell with you! My rights in fact do NOT end where your nose begins!” says the Stirnerite.

Renato Drumond July 29, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Maytbe it’s relevant to remember that Ron Paul voted for Afghanistan War.

TGGP July 30, 2007 at 12:58 am

Totally kosher.
The egoist disregards concepts of kosher.

How is this not simply might makes right?
Here is Sidney Parker’s review of the infamous “Might Is Right”. Parker deems it moralist.

“To hell with you! My rights in fact do NOT end where your nose begins!” says the Stirnerite.
The egoist doesn’t care for “rights”, he is concerned with property, his “eigentzum”. That can include your nose.

ktibuk July 30, 2007 at 4:20 am

“9/11 wasnt an attack against “America”, at least not according to an indivualist which a libertarian must be.

That is the same extreme – and thus inaccurate – definition of an individualist that the Left uses in their arguments against individualism in general.”

You believe a crime was commited on 9/11 right?

To identify the crime first you must identify the victim, since there cant be a crime without a victim.

The victim of that attack was the people whose property, including their lives, were agressed against.

Not some abstract entity called the US, or the society, or some fellow named Joe living in LA and had nothing to do with World Trade center at that time, or me for that matter.

And after you identify the crime and the victim you try to identify the criminal and the pay back.

The criminals are the ones that hijacked the planes and died, and the people who ordered the crimeand knowingly helped in some way.

Also since the victims aren’t some abstract entity, the criminals arent some abstract entity called, muslims, or arabs or Iraqis or some other thing. They are also individuals with individual responsibilities.

Those ondividuals are the ones that has to compansate the victims and their families, and some other individuals remotely associated with the real criminals.

This is the libertarian law.

At exactly what point can you jump to collective abstaract entities like state, and call for actions that only a state can engage in like war?

And if you irrationally do at some point how can you call yourself an individualist let alone an anarchist.

Barnett is not an anarchist, and if he were at one point this is the denouncement.

TokyoTom July 31, 2007 at 4:33 am

In response to Barnett (and to Raimondo’s criticism of Ron Bailey), Bailey links to a 2003 rountable with Hitchens, Preble and Eland:

http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/121451.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28872.html

Bailey also wrote this 2005 piece that recognizes that the war has gone far off the rails:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34082.html

Mathieu Bédard August 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm

There are more, including one by the execrable Tom Palmer, but I won’t sully Mises.org by linking to it.

That was so scholarly..

BS Kalafut August 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm

For those interested in the venerable Tom Palmer’s short remarks, they may be found at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/042217.php

James Redford August 7, 2007 at 11:31 am

As is so often the case, on this matter Prof. Rothbard provides the analysis for understanding Randy Barnett’s actions, vis-à-vis intellectuals in service of the state:

“The Anatomy of the State,” Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard’s articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974): http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

———-

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

That piece of evidence isn’t merely a smoking gun: it’s a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like (“like” in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful indendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

“Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

“Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn’t molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government’s account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there’s nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Steven E. Jones’s (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) below paper:

“Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Center%20J24.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

“Experiments to test NIST ‘orange glow’ hypothesis,” Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

“Experiments with Molten Aluminum,” Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

“A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel,” Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see “Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination” in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

“”
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. … No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
“”

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS) that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

“Revisiting 9/11/2001–Applying the Scientific Method,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

———-

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). This makes government itself the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist, or that could ever exist.

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* the U.S. government’s offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own non-combatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that’s only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel’s website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens–certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people’s very own government.

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies–massive conspiracies, at that–but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite insignificant by comparison.

Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself terrorism), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government’s lying, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:

“Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism,” September 30, 2005 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

In the below post by me, I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them–including homosexually anally raping them–and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:

“Crushing Children’s Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom,” TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth

For more on the inherent incentive structure (i.e., the internal logic of the system) of government which makes it wholly unfit for protection of just property and insures that it will tend toward ever greater levels of usurpation and rapine, see my below article (published under my legal name):

“Government Causes the Crime,” James Redford, first published at Anti-State.com circa October 2001 http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: