The winner is Gene Healy, for this post:

Questions on Iraq and the GWOT

Given that our intelligence agencies have a dearth of Arabic speakers, who’s been reading Al Qaeda email traffic since the fall of 2002? [How about contracting-out Gene? Ever hear of it? It’s a sort-of free-market way of performing government functions; it avoids the need to carry a permanent payroll of bureaucrats and, if done right, it’s a more effective way of spending taxpayers’ dollars. Haven’t you noticed that the intelligence agencies seem to have been doing a pretty good job lately? And do you suppose they’re really telling the truth about their capabilities. What kind of naive putz are you Gene?] I assume quite a few of the folks with the necessary language skills have been shifted from that task to dealing with Iraq. [See previous comment.] Who’s reading it now while we’re busy trying to deal with Moqtada al-Sadr or whoever the next enemy of the month is? [See previous comment, and stop trying to be so clever. You’re not that good at it.]

If the “flypaper” theory is true, and there is a fixed number of terrorists and it’s all about whether we want to fight them here or abroad, then why don’t we invade Saudi Arabia, put mouse ears on the Kabaa, and start charging admission to fat Christian tourists? That would really rile up the terrorist monolith, at no extra risk to us domestically! [He’s kidding, of course, because as a libertarian he doesn’t really care where his oil comes from as long as he can buy it at a good price. And an invasion of Saudi Arabia would certainly disrupt his supply of oil for a while. He’s too busy trying to be clever to understand that the Saudis must be worried about what happens when we’re through with Iraq — which is why GWB doesn’t tip his hand about such things. One despotism at a time, Gene. Patience, please.]

More seriously, if the “flypaper” theory is true, then why do we need to “drain the swamps” by democratizing the Middle East? [Drained swamps don’t always stay drained, dummy.] Doesn’t the latter theory depend on the idea that there aren’t a fixed (or relatively fixed) number of terrorists? (See the Rumsfeld memo.) If there’s a fixed number of terrorists, what important war-on-terror goal is served by turning Iraq (and later, Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al) into secular liberal democracies? [See previous comment. Also, do you have something against secular liberal democracies? Or is that you don’t think Arabs could possibly be as enlightened as we are? That’s hardly a libertarian way of looking at the world.] Surely it can’t be the case that already-practicing terrorists are going to lay down their arms in gratitude when democracy comes to the Arab world. [You’re right, Gene, that’s why we’re also trying to kill as many of them as we can while we have the chance. Oddly enough, the more we kill the fewer there will be because (1) some will be dead and (2) others will think twice about getting their butts shot off. I mean, that would be your reaction Gene, and you’re a fairly fanatical person yourself. Or do you believe that Arabs have a superior degree of fanaticism. If so, that’s racial stereotyping. Tsk, tsk.] Or is the theory that since they hate us because we’re free, once they’re free, they’ll hate themselves, and be too busy to bother with us? [If you’ve been paying attention Gene, you will have figured out that they will either be free, dead, cowed, or targeting bigots like you.]

Here’s some free advice, Gene. Don’t try to mix humor and serious commentary. You’re not up to it.

Tim Sandefur at Freespace objects to the implication that as a libertarian he is merely a “Republican without morals” and a “self-indulgent, narcissistic heathen,” who “pay[s] lip service to religion” — in the words of “Feddie” (Steve Dillard) at Southern Appeal. The proximate cause of Dillard’s first jibe was a post by sort-of-libertarian Will Baude at Crescat Sententia, in which Baude takes exception to an anti-abortion statement by Alan Keyes.

I’m not sure where Sandefur stands on abortion, but he implies that he’s for legal abortion when he says “I believe that it is immoral for one person to force others to do with their lives what he thinks is right.” If he’s talking about abortion, I must differ, on libertarian grounds. As a libertarian I can conscionably oppose abortion (and take a few other stands that don’t seem to be typical of libertarians), for reasons stated here and here.

In response to Sandefur’s objection, “Feddie” says,

And while many [l]ibertarians are thoughtful people who have carefully formed their views within the confines of respectable moral parameters (e.g., Sandefur, Crescast [sic], and Volokhs), it has been my experience that this is the exception rather than the rule. There is a cruder form of [l]ibertarianism bubbling up from our societal fabric, and it is not one premised on the writings of John Stuart Mill, but is instead anchored upon a radical individualism with no moral compass.

All thoughtful libertarians don’t premise their views on John Stuart Mill’s writings, but other than that, “Feddie” is right. I’ve come across many a so-called libertarian blog that is premised on unalloyed self-indulgence and is as rational as a toddler’s tantrums.

UPDATE:
Sandefur, in an update, says in further reply to “Feddie”:

Objectivism, of which I believe I am the most prominent blogging practitoner [sic], imposes a remarkably severe moral code, which has earned us a reputation among many other libertarians as serious killjoys.

The link leads to a short piece by Ayn Rand, in which she summarizes Objectivism. She says, among other things,

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders…[emphasis added].

I wonder what this “remarkably severe moral code” has to say about abortion and pre-emptive war. I don’t find abortion (and its companion, involuntary euthanasia) to be particularly moral, even by Rand’s stringent code, which claims to forgo physical force, except in self-defense. Nor do I find it particularly moral to acquiesce in the deaths of fellow citizens rather than trying (if not always successfully) to reach abroad and tear down the infrastructure of terrorism.