Bravo, Mr. Hospers. I'm pretty much in total agreement.

Yes PapayaSF, I too was heartened to find in Mr. Hospers a Libertarian who seems to understand the dangers of a Kerry administration. Compare this to the survey in Reason Magazine, Who's Getting Your Vote?, where the majority of the supposed "lights" of Libertarianism tie themselves in knots reminiscent of Andrew Sullivan to justify their support for Kerry or for not voting at all. The Libertarian Party seems to suffer from the same foreign policy defect as the Democrats -- one wonders whether they are willing to defend the country in any circumstances. (I say this as a registered Libertarian who will be proudly voting for Bush and against John McCain here in Arizona)

The real alternative to both mysticism and skepticism is the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism defends reason, objectivity, and a morality of rational self-interest...

i.e.

"HAVE YOU ACCEPTED AYN RAND AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR? NO? DIE, HERETIC!"

Check out the chapter "Most Unlikeliest Cult of All" in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. Apparently Rand either started Objectivism as a cult (with herself as prophet, priest, and goddess) or later turned it into one and "Skeptic" Shermer apparently had a few run-ins with them.

Philosophers are half-right when they claim that there aren't any universal truths, ethics, or moralities.
There are very few that stretch across all humans, from all eras, but there are many that are culture-wide, and every culture has, or has had, some.
Thus, it's another example of a struggle between competing human practices.
When one culture dominates the Earth, which seems quite likely to happen within a few hundred years, then there will be universally shared morals and ethics.
(Note that "dominate" need not mean the complete elimination of other cultures).

jd watson:

There's a difference between defending the nation from invasion, and foreign adventurism, such as Iraq. Any given foreign foray might result in gain for the US, but it's never assured, and hardly qualifies as "defense", except in the sense of the cliche, "the best defense is a good offense".

Ken:

Of course Schermer just started a different cult.

Reason Magazine is a nest of Jew-hating crackpottery, as is much of official Libertarianism. Harry Browne sure spends a lot of time on our aid to Israel, which amounts to little more than 1/7 of one percent of the budget.

Michael, Iraq done right is not 'foreign adventurism.' It is a necessary part of stopping the terrorists where they live, rather than where we do.

"I didn't leave the Libertarian Party – they left me."

Bart:

Yes, it's the "done right" part that makes it adventurism.
It's a gamble, regardless of whether or not you like taking it. Even if it had gone perfectly, and it clearly has not, there's no telling what the fall-out will be next decade.

"Necessary" is hogwash. The Bush administration might like the cost/benefit/risk analysis, but that's not at all the same thing. Not at all.

The kinds of things that America is doing in Yemen, Djibouti, Afghanistan and Pakistan don't require an Iraqi invasion.

Micheal,

Done right means slicing the place up into its three constituent parts and going from there. I was thrilled when the war started because there actually was serious discussion of doing this logical step and the lack of cooperation from the staggeringly stupid government in Turkey should have been a goad to disregard its wishes concerning an independent Kurdistan.

However disappointed I am because Bush failed to do right by the Kurds and Shias due to his families fealty to the Saudi 'royals', I am still happy that we did what we did. Saddam was a major source of funding for terrorists around the world(e.g. Hamas, Muslim Bortherhood), and his continued presence on the world stage served as a thumb in the eye to America generally. Knocking him from power has also caused other more circumspect thugs like Qaddafi to be more cooperative.

Afghanistan is Afghanistan and Iraq is Iraq. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all policy.

I too was dismayed by the Reason staffers' presidential picks. More than anything, though, I was confounded by them.

I can sympathize with libertarians who aren't thoroughly enamored with* Bush. I'm one of them. The Medicare stuff, the unrestrained growth, etc.

But why would such disenchantment lead someone to the guy who's even WORSE on this stuff? If it's the "gridlock-makes-good-government" theory, well, that's nifty in principle. But voting Kerry under such a rationale is a mighty risky proposition.

But put aside for a moment the qualities of Kerry himself. The bigger danger is that electing Kerry would lend validation to the Moore/Soros/Springsteen wing of the left. These are the folks who have staked the most on a Kerry win (or more accurate, a Bush loss). And they are the ones who would be most energized and empowered by a Kerry presidency -- smack dab in the middle of what had been a long, steady decline in their influence. History was killing off their ideology. Giving it a shot of life is the absolute worst thing we could do.

Then there's that whole Supreme Court judges thing. Any liberty-lover who wants Kerry in charge of loading up the court is, well, not really a liberty-lover.

Bush may not be ideal for libertarians, but he cannot do nearly the longterm harm that a reenergized hard-left could do. Kerry is a nothingburger, but Mooreism is the direct antithesis of libertarianism. A vote for Kerry is less a vote for Kerry than for libertarianism's most dangerous enemy.

*("Enamored with" vs. "enamored of": it's a tough call. A Google search of both phrases finds "enamored of" just barely edging out its opponent: 74,800 hits to 71,300. But the "with" version" has always sounded better to my ear. It's got an extra touch of punch.)

Right And Wrong

Semolina:

They're libertines, not libertarians.

Bart:

I'm thrilled that Saddam is gone, and the Taliban were second from the top on my list of "problems to fix once I'm King of the World" for five years before America humiliated them, behind only North Korea.

However, we could have dealt with Saddam without the invasion and nation-building. A full-fledged bombing campaign could have turned his shop to rubble.

Don't misunderstand, I believe that the Iraqi pacification was the second-best option, and that what the US is doing in Iraq will probably end up doing more good than harm.
In fact, I'd like to see the US engage in far more interventions and nation-building.

However, none of that is "defense", in the strictest meaning of the word, and all of it is a gamble.

Bart: I've read pretty much every issue of Reason since 1978, and I don't recall a single instance of "Jew-hating crackpottery," much less a "nest" worth. Objecting to foreign aid to X is not the same as hating X.

Papaya,

Visit their website.

Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry is downright incoherent. Here's my take on wobbly Andrew.

Michael, what would bombing Iraq accomplish? A devastated Iraq, even without Saddam, would fall prey to civil war, which would be a perfect host for Al Quaeda and other terrorist splinter organizations.

Wow! I never thought it was possible, but I guess Libertarians are capable of realizing that there are serious flaws in their atheist, libertine philosophy.