Thursday, May 23, 2013

Supporting War

Today the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of a Lindsey Graham resolution, S.Res.65, which "[s]trongly support(s) the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urg[es] the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation."

Iran has not invaded another country.  Based on credible reports, Iran has violated no treaty.  Iran most certainly does not pose a threat to any of the 50 states of the United States.

I will keep this brief:

1)      The clearest line delineating libertarian non-aggression is seen in the view on war.
2)      It was unanimous, Rand Paul included.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian – no news here, he says so himself. 

This vote isn’t simple window dressing.  McAdams points out the meaning of this vote, very simply: “This is an important vote.”  He suggests that every Senator that voted “Yea” will have little choice but to support US military involvement if / when that time comes.

It is safe to say that Rand Paul is not only not libertarian, he is in favor of big government.  There is no more intrusive government program than war, and this unanimous statement is most certainly supportive of war.


  1. Don't you see? It's all part of the secret plan to win liberty!*

    *sarcasm and snark level at an all time high, as the silence from the Randwagon is almost as deafening as the progressive left's silence on...well, everything Obama

    1. Yes, we will win liberty by trickery and treachery, and we will be so good at trickery and treachery that the political class won't even see us coming.

      Yeah, that is rational!

  2. I sent him a hundred bucks early I don't know if I feel like a schmuck or a shmoe or a shlub. Maybe a little of each.

    1. The best lessons in life usually come at some cost.... I think many were caught up in the "Paul" name; it seems many still are. Perhaps you got out cheap!

  3. sanctions are an act of war. the u. s. is responsible for the initiation of these sanctions. this puts the u. s. in the position of 'having fired the first shot'.

    since iran has done nothing to the u. s., the actions of the u. s. represent 'waging aggressive war' against a nation that has done the u. s. nothing.

    didn't the u. s. and its allies hang the nazis for, among other things, 'waging aggressive war'? has morality changed? has right now become wrong and wrong become right?

    or, is the u. s. simply another corrupt, malevolent empire, pathetically common in human history?

    it is my conviction that far too few of us know and understand the answer to this last question.