Wednesday
(0)There are two anti-war movements... and I think both of them are wrong, though for quite different reasons. But it is the Old Left's anti-war sentiments regarding Iraq which Janet Daly takes to task in her article in the Telegraph Answer this: do the people of Iraq deserve freedom?. Although I am not a huge fan of "hang 'em an' flog 'em" conservatives like Janet Daly, I find myself in broad agreement with her on this.
Whilst I realise isolationists (many of whom are on the conservative right or are paleo-libertarians) who oppose the destruction of the Ba'athist regime are often a different intellectual kettle of fish and do not see themselves as give aid to a tyrant, it is the questions like the ones Janet Daly poses which cause me to describe the left wing/paleo-socialist 'anti-war movement' as the 'Pro-Saddam Hussain/Anti-liberation-of-the-Iraqi-people movement'.
Ha! "paleo-libertarians": that's great Perry. I can't wait to share this with all the primitives over at Liberty Forum.
Posted by Kevin Connors at January 29, 2003 07:44 PM
"Paleo-libertarian", like "paleo-conservative", does not mean "primitive" or "cave-man-esque." It basically just means "old" as opposed to "new." It's just a different ideology - "neo-libertarians" are more likely to compromise and be minarchists, "paleo-libertarians" are more likely to be damn the torpedoes anarchists who read a lot of Murray Rothbard. And it is interesting how the *second* reply to your post on Liberty Forum is an anti-Semitic one.
Posted by J. Michael Krause at January 29, 2003 08:21 PM
I'm well aware of the definition of the term. But the connotation is still quite funny and I'm sure Perry wasn't blind to that when composing his post.
As for the reply to my LF post, the place is awash in anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists sure that George Bush is the trained poodle of the Israelis.
Posted by Kevin Connors at January 29, 2003 09:24 PM
