Highly recommended.

The Antiwar Right’s Bent View of the World

I don’t know if anyone has noticed that I don’t use the terms ‘the left’ or ‘liberals’ when I am talking about the anti-war crowd. That’s because the anti-war crowd is not all ‘left’ or ‘liberal’; quite a number in that camp are on the right or in the libertarian camp. This article takes a hard look at the anti-war right. Read.

Hat tip to: Winds of Change.

4 Comments

  1. wits0
    Posted 17 Dec, 2004 at 13:04 | Permalink

    Actually methinks some of these “anti-war” crowd are actually anti-establishment to the point of treason or simply pathologically hate America ala Chomsky. There are many exported and cloned versions too. Thanks to your Leftist academia, eg. As if others simply love war! Preposterous hypocrites.

  2. wits0
    Posted 17 Dec, 2004 at 13:12 | Permalink

    Labels usually get stretched and even change their meaning. “Multiculturalism” sounds good and fair but in its present form and nature it is a falsehood of a flop. Remember the Greens and PETA?

  3. Posted 19 Dec, 2004 at 16:09 | Permalink

    I can see a lot of his points, Kathy, but one of his linked examples doesn’t hold water: the critique of Joseph Sobran an an example of “The anti-American Right” doesn’t hold water on reading Sobran. Nor does it hold water on reading Rothbard.

    “… a former leading constitutionalist on the right has become an enemy of the Constitutionâ��indeed, of the very existence of government.” - Lawrence Auster

    He says “become an enemy… indeed, of the very existence of government” like that’s a Bad Thing. ;)

    Government is inherently State imposition of will and curtailment of liberty by treat of naked force. Our government is no longer acting within constitutional boundaries - something that even few “pro-American” conservatives will deny. The current Republican majority shows few signs of paying more than lip service to the precepts of returning to rule by constitution… lack of constitutionality cannot be laid entirely to blame at the feet of liberalism when Progressive Republicanism is equally satisfied to treat the Constitution as a “living document” for the government redistribution of property in return for votes/influence.

    Now, keep in mind that I’m not anti-War, nor am I anti-American. I am however anti-Government.

    It comes down to a simple questions: who owns us?

    Are we our own masters? Or does the State have some inherent right of ownership of us simply because of it’s monopoly on force? What reins in the State when the heads of the State treat the supposed limiter - the Constitution - as toilet paper? Does the Constitution then have any validity as a contract, when one contractee ignores it and the other has no practical means of enforcement?

    Gummint is not your Friend. “Conservative” Gummint is no more your “Friend” than Liberal Gummint.

    *shrug* If viewing that I am my own master and no one puts chains on me makes me “anti-American” in Auster’s eyes, well… I’ll wear the label and treat it with the same respect I treat every label other people attempt to stick on me - none at all. And piss on Lawrence Auster. Especially if he accepts as an article of faith that Government has any inherent rights, and that citizens are “subjects” to its whim.

    That’s not treason, wits0 - not under the Declaration of Independance I learned. Mayhaps your copy differs?

  4. Posted 19 Dec, 2004 at 16:10 | Permalink

    Sorry, turned into a bit of a segue. Main point is, if one of Auster’s linked examples is suspect, then I’m inclined to treat the rest of his conclusions as suspect as well.

One Trackback

  1. [...]

    December 20, 2004

    The anti-American right

    It takes all kinds, I guess.

    Posted by Ian S. in Generalat 3:44 pm | [...]