English is indeed generally more efficient in expressing the same ideas with the same accuracy but less words than the French.

But then you’re lucky. I could be German.

Constantin_H:

The problem is not so much the fight against terrorism than the dogmatic reactions of the partisans of “the” philosophy that is precisely the negation of all ideologies, when they face the exigencies of reality.

Hence my “libertISM”

--

Constantin_H:

Le problème n’est pas tant la question spécifique de la lutte contre le terrorisme que les réactions dogmatiques des tenants de “la” philosophie qui se trouve être précisément la négation de toute idéologie, lorsqu’ils se trouvent confrontés aux exigences de la réalité.

D’où mon “libertISME”.

LaFéeC :

“(...) pas un libéral n’est d’accord avec un autre à 100%”

Et justement, c’est là toute l’idée non?

Sinon, il suffirait de rejoindre le troupeau des collectivistes, millénaristes et autres emboiteurs de petites boites en ‘isme’, se fondre bien au chaud dans le confort de la paresse intellectuelle que procure l’adhésion aveugle au « on » et aux « nous », chanter les mantras tous en coeur et s’extasier devant les réponses infinies fournies par l’Idéologie et la pensée correcte puisque magique, le monde ne changeant jamais sans l’accord du Dogme et étant forcément Tel qu’il est Pensé par l’Intellectuel (de gauche comme de droite et d’ailleurs, d’ailleurs - même si nous devons reconnaître une nette supériorité aux premiers dans ce domaine. De Rousseau à Chomsky, le fruit d’une longue tradition…)

Cela dit, en effet, je “m’en tape” pas mal. C’est juste pour causer.

Mais les bises, je ne m’en lasse pas. ;)

“Well, my ideas on Liberty and the price of a human life, whoseever it is, (…)”

Including the Iraqis in the hands of Saddam’s political police? Or not these ones?

“(…) but I do not consider this to be a call for inactivity. Rather a different kind of action.”

Great. What kind of action concretely?

And oh, please make it quick. People are dying in industrial shredders and buried in mass graves while you’re ideas on liberty and the price of human life forbid you to intervene.

“Ne trouvez-vous pas d’autre part un peu réducteur d’assimiler le libertarianisme à la négation de toute idéologie ?”

C’est une phrase toute faite, je “n’assimile” rien en “réduction” ou en extension.

Quoi qu’il en soit, l’idéologie est un concept entièrement et irrémédiablement négatif. A ce propos, c’est à mon tour de vous signaler que les pires calamités politiques sont nées, ont prospéré et assassiné en vertu des piliers que sont le couple maudit idéologie/idéologue, à la fois instigation et justification de l’oppression au nom d’un « idéal supérieur » et impossible à remettre en cause, la fonction première de l’idéologie étant de fabriquer des réponses pour soutenir le dogme. Hmm…Vous parliez de bloc monolithique?

Quoi qu’il en soit, toute philosophie se trouvant être la négation de cette mort de l’esprit ne s’en trouve définitivement pas “réduite” mais n’en sort, bien au contraire, que grandie.

Maintenant, si vous tenez effectivement à conserver sous le bras le recours à l’idéologie (au cas où ?), nous n’avons effectivement pas la même conception de la liberté et du prix de la vie humaine, notamment face à ceux dont le seul but est de détruire l’une et l’autre.

Ce sera donc en conséquence mon tour, dans ces circonstances, d’accepter avec grand plaisir le label de sectaire que vous m’attribuez.

>>[“Of course. But you have to admit there seems to be a double standard here. Using this kind of justification, we could as well call for an invasion (sorry, liberation) of, amongst others, Tibet, China, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, North Korea, Chechnya, Liberia, Ivory Coast, and even Northern Ireland.”]

Certainly not. That would be, as you called it, a “monolithic” way to think.

I’m sorry to break what seems to be a regrettable egalitarian reflex of yours, but first, I fail to get the logic implied in your assertion: you’re telling me that not liberating Tibet or North Korea is a good reason for not liberating Iraq?

Man, you sure do care for freedom and people’s lives. Please do me favor: never care for mine, thanks.

And next, well, “double standards” do exist (And secondarily, morale equivalence is bad. No, seriously). One thing you could learn, since it may come in handy: even when the goal is the same, every situation is different.

Unless you stick to a dogma, of course…

So apparently, your position is “it’s either war or my way”?

Mine is: “different contexts call for different actions and interactions”. It’s all about balance and most of all, getting REAL, since we’re not in the shiny immaculate world of ideas (well, I don’t know about know, but I’m not) and the world is very rarely exactly like intellectuals and ideologists consider it is – or shall be.

I don’t know who the “we” calling for invasions could be and you forgot to add Iran to your list, but anyway: US troops where sent to Liberia, answering the call of the population and the hypocritical remarks of the UN (which, oddly enough, where right on the same line as yours: “Double standards” and stuff) was it bad? French troops were sent to the Ivory Coast answering nobody’s call but France’s shady post-colonial African policy, which indeed didn’t solve anything – and I opposed it just like I imagine you did. The British have been working to find a rational and political solution to the Ulster situation for decades. Meanwhile, there are British troops in Northern Ireland, they’re fighting terrorism. But I imagine you’re going to tell me they shouldn’t? One of the strategic ideas behind the liberation of Iraq is precisely to induce a radical change in Saudi Arabia – and by extension, the rest of the Middle East – without invading her (I hope that this, at least, should make you happy?), as for China and the Tibet situation, North Korea, etc… What makes you believe that nobody is keeping an eye on them and already considering the threats and appropriate answers? One problem at a time. Unlike you maybe, I don’t expect the US to take every dictatorial blood pit on this planet, single handedly and overnight. But I do hope – and believe - they’re working on the plans.

Anyway, I still can’t see what you’re trying to prove by comparing apples and oranges – apart from the fact that they all grow on trees, but I never contested that.

>> [“My standing on this is that war is never a right option,”]

Just like Chirac and de Villepin. And Saddam probably, at least when the challenger is the US.

I hope it’s not for the same reasons though, but you should be careful with the vicinity your opinion leads you in.

>> [“(…) as it tends to give more power to the states, something which, as a libertarian, I cannot accept.”]

Yep. I understood already that some of you libertarians talk about “the state” just like the lefties talk about “the free market”, and about “freedom” like the Communists talk about “the proletariat”. And that it incites you to have lots of things you cannot accept, but very little you can propose, since you’re blocked in by the former.

Definitely not a good sign in my book I’m afraid.

>> [“Besides, what do you make of the lives of the US soldiers that die there ? “]

Well, I could answer first that, at least, they decided not to sit on their hands and wait to see if freedom, its defense and the safety of their nation will fall out of the trees but in fact… Wow, I’ll tell you what: you did indeed take me aback on this one. Congratulations.

It’s amazing to see a “libertarian” lacking insight on that specific issue and falling into the good old revolutionary Communist argument.

Problem is, in case you didn’t notice, we’re not talking about the Czar’s army in WWI. We’re talking about a professional army of individual volunteers, who join for their own personal reasons and choices, perfectly aware of the conditions. We’re talking about – don’t miss this one – individuals passing a contract with their nation, and ready to stick to its terms, while keeping their rights and a reasonable possibility to renegotiate. (Are you going to tell me that there’s a fraction of libertarians who have a problem with the notion of “contracts”?)

We’re talking about an army of free men. That means that each of them is responsible for what they do with their lives – and neither me nor you, have a word to say. Except, in my case, to commend them.

>> [“In the case of Saddam Hussein (as in the case of Castro), I would first repeal the sanctions currently in place, that are indeed very handy to the dictator in place, who can then blame sanctions for whichever ills are plaguing his country, and are more harmful to the population than to its rulers.”]

“Repealing the sanctions” and “Castro”. Now that’s brilliant. You seem to be confusing “blockade” with “embargo”. There is indeed an embargo between Cuba and the United States, but the rest of the Communist world (and somehow, I include France) have been fuelling and feeding the old despicable beard ever since the beginning of his murderous adventure.

That’s certainly the lack of serious “sanctions” that helped his tropical Worker’s Paradise to last so long (and, in case you didn’t notice this one as well, helped him to spread it so far. Maybe something you’ll want to meditate on?) and he is still helped, to a lesser extent, by the cash flowing in, thank to the moronic European tourist (and no, that money doesn’t help the Cubans either).

Now, if you’re going to tell me that the same should have been done for Saddam, you’ll have to find some more convincing examples.

>> [“Same thing for North Korea except I would also cut all money and aid flows to that counrty and let it rot itself to revolution.”]

What do you mean? That you’re going to repeal the sanctions but cut money and aid flows?

So what “sanctions” are you exactly going to repeal? The blockade on Looney Tunes? More Daffy Ducks for Kim?

I’m afraid you’re not making a lot of sense here.

There’s a damn lot that could be said on that “let it rot to revolution” idea, particularly if, as you put it, you have a high conception of the value of any given human life.

North Korea is one of the most militarized countries in the world but the population is starving – down to the point of eating rats and grass when they’re lucky, and just like China in the Great Leap Forward, cannibalism cases have been reported, at least on dead bodies. And I’m afraid this is only the “bright” side of this mad house.

One can’t hold a gun with an empty stomach. Why, in the name of Good Sense, do you think that the first job of a dictator is to maintain populations in the most precarious equilibrium as far as basic needs are concerned? (and of course, there would still be the question to actually find a gun to hold, anyway).

And you’re telling me you want the situation to get even worse, to see if it’ll help it to get better?

Anyway, for the sake of the argument, let’s push your idea further: sanctions are repealed, money and aid is blocked (no matter how asinine this sounds) although, thanks to the repealing, Looney Tunes are flowing in, which really pleases Kim.

But somehow, I’m afraid it won’t be enough for him. He’ll want more (money, would be a good start).

Large totalitarian states, like Soviet Russia and China can last longer since they have more resources to drain (and can make their own Looney Tunes) but there’s not a lot of options for small and medium sized dictatorial countries to keep their heads out of the water.

So now that Kim is bored with Looney Tunes, he’s facing the following choice:

If he’s not subject to sanctions of any kind, he can get any help from other sympathizing regimes, arms sales to whoever can pay since this is the only thing totalitarian states can produce, wishful thinkers who blindly believe that no containment will help the people and bad politics such as the UN programs or the Clintonian approach (that one meant “Give Kim all the Looney Tunes he wants and give him the cash, and he’ll play nice).

Apparently, considering what happened in the real world lately, he got the Looney Tunes, the cash and started to push forward his nuclear weapons program while maintaining, and possibly reinforcing his grip on the country. In that case, hoping for a “rot” leading to “revolution” is like betting on the luck of a legless hedgehog in the middle of an 8 lanes highway at peak hours.

I sympathize with him, but I wouldn’t risk my money.

The other option is, of course, to conquer other territories and drain their resources. That was actually the initial stage of the minority of Bolsheviks who took the power in Russia, and I guess there’s no need to mention Nazi Germany, or even… Saddam’s Iraq (I don’t think the Kuwait border crossing session was induced by the need for more sand only.)

Oddly enough, I’m afraid the cost in freedom and human lives for the newly acquired Looney Tunes and cash will reach the higher grounds and that in that case as well, waiting for a “rot” and a “revolution” is hopeless.

And anyway, even if it was… Do you mean a “revolution” costs no lives? And do you mean letting a country ruled by totalitarians “rot itself” has none either?

Any estimation for the cost in lives for years (and how much exactly?) of decomposition in a country ruled by a violent state, leading to a desperate revolution? (Which, for reasons I exposed above, have in my opinion little chance to happen – the very fact that such closed countries as Kim’s North Korea still endure a totalitarian state after decades is enough probably enough to make my point actually.)

Not mentioning, of course, the threat such situation represents outside of its own frontiers…

I’m not convinced.

>> [“So you are one of those guys who cannot use the right spelling of “your” ? “]

Well, if you take a look back at your own comments, you may notice your own inappropriate use of “whoseever” (“whoever” or even “whosoever” would have been better), your wrong spelling of “against” and of “country”.

But you’ll notice as well that, considering we’re not native English speakers (as far as I can tell but feel free to deny it), and that moreover nobody’s perfect, I didn’t see fit to resort to the kind of cheap shot you’ve just compromised yourself in.

Needless to say, with this kind of third-rate Internet flaming forum trick you’ve just dropped a good deal of ranks towards the bottom of my list of valuable interlocutors.

>> [“Same thing as before. Taking this into account, why don’t you call for an invasion of Tibet where the population is dying in droves, buddhist monks are routinely executed and innocent chinese citizens displaced there so that China can claim ethnic majority in the country ?”]

Well, same thing as above: not liberating Tibet is a good reason for not liberating Iraq?

I guess this – pretty weak – counter argument was answered at the beginning. You’re repeating yourself I’m afraid.

>> [« Entièrement d’accord avec vous pour le couple idéologie/idéologue. Je n’ai jamais prétendu détenir la vérité universelle (je ne suis déjà pas sûr de la détenir en ce qui me concerne moi-même). Mais justement, c’est vous qui préconisez d’intervenir militairement en suivant VOS idées. »]

Une fois de plus, vous manquez le nœud du problème : contrairement à ce que proclame l’idéologie, la vérité universelle, n’existe pas. Vous n’êtes donc pas plus que moi, en mesure de la détenir – et vous devriez être plus prudent, car c’est là précisément l’argument clef de tout idéologue.

La principale différence étant donc que contrairement à vous, j’imagine, je ne cherche pas une « vérité » supérieure et immanente mais les réponses les mieux adaptées, les plus efficaces et les moins coûteuses en vertu de critères concrets et de la prise en considération des réalités, le tout pesé soigneusement sur la balance de mes valeurs morales.

Quoi qu’il en soit, je peine à saisir la logique de votre argumentation (en quoi mes « préconisations » découlent elles « justement » de la détention ou non d’une vérité inexistante ?) sauf si je devais considérer que concernant ma position sur l’intervention militaire en Irak, vous tentez délibérément de m’imputer des intentions et inféodation à une quelconque idéologie – ce qui, dans l’absolu, serait un autre « cheap shot ».

Mais là n’est pas votre intention, n’est ce pas ?