The Libertarian Review July 1978 - Libertarianism.org

Letters(continuedfrom page 2)tarian Review has resolved to doeverything it can to contribute to thedebate from a different noninterventionistperspective. We have, in brief,tried to answer, in broad strokes, someof the more prominent argumentsraised in defense of militarz'sm, interventionz'sm,and for drastically increasingour arms budgets. If you wz"ll readeverything publz'shed in LR along theselz"nes, you will see that, although thereare differences among LR's authors,their contributions, taken together,form a coherent view offoreign policyand defense questions. LR's writers arenot confused skeptics: they have a pointofview.There is indeed a disagreementamong many libertarians about thesez'ssues. But here I will make a flat statementwhich I feel z's more than supportedby the facts: Those who are best informedon these z'ssues, those who havestudied them the most, are the onesmost strongly in favor of a thoroughgoingnoninterventionz'st foreign policy,seeing a drastic cutback in U. S. militaryforces as both reasonable and feasible;those most uncomfortable with such aposition are those who have studied suchmatters the least, and who often knownext to nothing about the z'ssues involvedin the defense/foreign policydebate.By all means, let lz"bertarians study allthe different sides to the debate! I havebeen urging libertarians to take thedebate seriously and to read the significantcases for both points of view formany years. I have urged Tibor Machanto study the z'ssues involved. Most ofthem, however, particularly those whotake z'ssue with LR's general approach,are simply not willing to do anythingsubstantial to alter their present statesofignorance or confusion. Thz's I take tobe a shirking of what z's today, forserious intellectuals, a profound moralresponsibility.I am fully convinced that the morelibertarians study the z'ssues, the morethey will agree with positions setforth inLibertarian Review. I urge. ProfMachan to test that hypothesz's with allthe energy and intelligence at hz's command.-Roy A. Childs, Jr.Defense, not offenseAs a member of the "militaryindustrialcomplex" for over 40 years,this writer can confirm the validity ofMr. William Marina's statements [inreviewing R. J. Rummel in the Mayissue]. Yes, we do need a big stick todeter the Russians. But the Cruise(formerly the Polaris) is more than adequateto the purpose. I knew RoyAnderson, inventor of the guidancesystem used in the Cruise and other apparatus.It is an exceedingly simple andeffective weapon~ I believe.As to our present adventures inAfrica: It seems our "statesmen" areunable to learn. Russia can't take overAfrica or any other large part of theglobe- their own experience proves it.Peter the Great was criticized by somefor retreating from Charles of Sweden.He replied, "Yes, it is true; Charles isbeating us now. But in beating us, hewill teach us how to beat him." It happened,and the Swedes were driven outof Russia. They worked the same gametwice since then: once on Napoleon andonce on HitIer. Yet the lesson seemslost - not only to us, but even the Russians!Ever since the time of WoodrowWilson, poor Uncle Sam has been madethe meddler and jackass of the world.When will it stop? I don't know. But Ido know that it will not stop until thevoters rise in their anger and put a stopto it. The Libertarians have the rightformula. I'm 77, and growing very tired.But I hope the younger people will takeover and keep it going. Jarvis-Gann is agood sign. Let's keep it moving.EschClVing ideologyJohnE. ErbNorthville, New YorkDanny Shapiro is to be commendedfor his insightful overview of neoconservatism(Feb. and March 1978).There is one point, however, which wasnot, to my mind, sufficiently addressed.That is the issue of "ideology."Neoconservatives often claim toeschew "ideology" as unrealistic and tooconfining for the world of events inwhich men find themselves. They claimto rise above ideology and lay claim tothe only practical approach to politicalaffairs. All of their ideological opponents(regardless of their place on thespectrum) are brushed aside asideologues, and hence impractical andunrealistic.This is the same canard which theMarxists have tried to foist off on intellectualsfor years. All other viewpointsare biased ideologies (for theMarxists, "bourgeoise" ideologies) andhence invalid. Despite this intellectuallegerdemain, both Marxism and neoconservatismare themselves ideologies.Both accept the state as a legitimate institutionand both advocate state actionof various kinds. In the case of the neoconservatives,a consz'stent worldviewand programm is set aside in favor of anad hoc advocacy of this or that policy.This does not, however, mean that theyhave no worldview, for they must havesome criteria by which to judge themerits of a particular act of state. Thisacceptance of state action plus the (inconsistent)set of criteria which goesalong with it constitutes an ideology.By claiming to eschew ideology perse, neoconservatives downplay the inconsistencyand incoherence of theirown ideology, just as the Marxists foryears forestalled a critique of socialismand the socialist society by tarring allsuch critiques with "bourgeoise sentiments."The neoconservatives aretruer to their socialist origins than theyperhaps would like to admit.Tom G. Palmer5t. John's CollegeAnnapoll's, MarylandViable political philosophyThe two articles by Daniel Shapiro arevery well done- thoughtful, knowledgeable,on the whole temperate. But towrite a reply, one would have to end updiscussing libertarianism as a viablepolitical philosophy (which I think it isnot) and that would talft; a lot of time,which I simply do not have.•Irving KristolEditorThe Publz"c InterestNew York City44Libertarian Review