Antiwar.com Blog

The fascinating economist Joseph Schumpeter, whose concept of “creative destruction” has been so abused by Michael Ledeen and various liberventionists, opposed the Second World War. Found this nugget from a Schumpeter biography via LRC blog:

Before the war’s outbreak on 1 September 1939, [Schumpeter] made clear to his friends and colleagues his belief that war should be avoided at all costs. Even if concessions to Hitler were necessary, they would be preferable to an all-out war that could destroy the European economy and, even more important, its culture. Not only did Schumpeter fear the physical destruction of cities and the loss of many lives, he also dreaded the idea that European civilization itself might receive a blow from which it could not recover. Imagining yet another threat, he felt that capitalism could not survive a war. His alarm was not based on a fear of socialism, because he believed it would result from the natural evolution of capitalist society anyway, but he did fear fascism, state-controlled capitalism, and circumscribed personal liberties. He reasoned that a war would so change Europe that fettered and state-dominated capitalism in the hands of totalitarian regimes would become permanent features of European states. And, as he would say later, even the United States might share the same fate.

Cue David Frum and Conrad Black worshipping FDR; the ever-plumping military-industrial mafia; and the spend spend spend/restrict restrict restrict GOP.

Great roundup of base-closure stories by Jeremy Sapienza. Which makes me wonder: once (if) these bases close, will the folks who get kicked off the dole remain as intensely militaristic as they are now? Will love last after the pork is gone?

Before anyone calls for my scalp, here’s a link to a non-loony Randian whose work you might enjoy: Arthur Silber, who writes:

I think that a deep understanding of Rand’s ideas, and especially of the unique methodology which she brought to her explicitly philosophic work, would lead one to see that those ideas are fundamentally opposed to the system of corporate statism which so completely dominates the United States today. It is that system which is now inextricably tied to our foreign policy in countless ways, including what appears might be a succession of foreign wars, followed by lengthy periods of occupation. I think a genuine appreciation for Rand’s insights in this area would lead one to oppose that policy in the most forceful terms, as I myself do. And yet, many self-proclaimed admirers of Rand maintain that her views support the current foreign policy of the United States. I believe this is a significant distortion of her work, and of her intellectual legacy.

But some Randians are pretty creepy. Jim Capo sends in his nomination for most obnoxious “libertarian” hawk: Leonard Peikoff and crew at the Ayn Rand Institute. Not that they’re being untrue to Rand’s vision or anything. Check out her own thoughts on collateral damage:

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn’t left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression—in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won’t fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.

In Soviet Russia, there aren’t very many innocent ones—and they’re mainly in concentration camps.

If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn’t be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. [emphasis mine]

I think Osama bin Laden would agree. For more on the Divine Miss Ayn, see our own Jeremy Sapienza’s “Kill an Arab for Ayn.”

The “neocon is a codeword for Jew” lie, that is. Some great refutations over the last week of this dirty ploy:

*Justin Raimondo (and also see this)

*Gene Healy

*Steven Greenhut

*Calpundit

*Josh Marshall

Feel free to send me any notable links you’ve seen on this topic, and I’ll add them to this list.

UPDATE 1/8: Tristero has his own list.

In an earlier post (now corrected), I stated that Tim Starr is “a San Francisco Libertarian Party member who is a self-proclaimed anarcho-hawk who advocates the elimination of government, except that as long as government exists, it should focus on wiping out radical islamists around the world.”

Tim Starr has written to me to correct and clarify his positions. In fairness, I have corrected the original post and post his email to me here:

---

1) I am not and never have been an SFLP member (I live in Berkeley), although I went to many of their meetings in the mid-1990s and belonged to the California and National LP for several years. I let my membership lapse due to dissatisfaction with the campaigns of LP Presidential candidate Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. At the time, my concerns about him had nothing to do with foreign policy, although I have disagreed strongly with his foreign policy statements since 9/11/01.

2) I do not advocate “wiping out radical islamists around the world.” That criterion is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad because there is no need to wipe out “radical Islamists” so long as they confine themselves to peaceful persuasion and other forms of consensual action. It is too narrow because there are other threats to American lives, such as North Korea’s nuclear program.

3) My position is not that the US government ought to pursue the foreign policy goals I think correct “as long as it exists.” My position is that it ought to pursue those foreign policy goals as long as there is no better non-governmental alternative. In the absence of such an alternative, the US government must protect us from being mass-murdered by Islamo-fascist terrorists.