Libertarian Longhorns

On U.S. military aid to Israel

"It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah." Mahatma Ghandi

Martin Luther King, Jr. once wrote, "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth." I won't bother arguing against him, but nor will I allow myself to be muzzled by fear of being considered Anti-Semitic, because I know myself, and I know that I am not. (Ghandi and Einstein (a Jew) were anti-Zionist)

For half a century, the Israeli government and a group of Palestinians have been fighting a guerilla war. Palestinian suicide bombers have killed hundreds of Israelis, many of them civilians, while Israel has used it's military to kill hundreds of Palestinians, many of them civilians, and restrict the freedoms of all Palestinians through curfews, checkpoints, and other legal forms of discrimination. Currently, Israel is undergoing a project of building a wall across Israel to divide the two peoples, in hopes of isolating themselves from the threat of suicide bombers; in the process they divide communities, and families, further reducing the chances of a much-needed reconciliation between the peoples. Many on both sides have suffered losses at the hands of their neighbors. It's clear to me that if a Palestinian suicide kills 10 innocent people, then it is just as detestable as an Israeli military action that kills 10 innocents. What's worse is that each of these actions inspires the victim's people to act out in anger, creating more of the same. It's a vicious cycle with no clear end in sight. It seems to be quite a mess, and I would question the reasoning of any person who strongly supports one of these groups over the other. Yet our American government is doing just that.

Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. It has received nearly $100 Billion dollars since it's creation in the '50s, and continues to receive aid at the rate of $2 Billion per year. That's 30% of our foreign aid going to a wealthy, self-supporting nation capable of providing it's own defense. That's the fruit of your labor, going to support Israel, enabling them to act in ways that, while sometimes justified, often result in unnecessary harm and the death of innocents, not to me the effect on the lives of Palestinians who must live under the restrictions of an Israeli police-state.

In any case, I reject and condemn the actions of both sides in this conflict. It's just that, in the case of Israel, thanks to the government's actions, my money goes to support these actions. That my efforts are being turned against innocent Palestinians and in turn, inciting violence against innocent Jews, saddens me. Even still, we have little choice in the matter, the amount of foreign military aid going toward Israel in 2005 will increase to more than $2.2 Billion dollars.

So when you see those shirts that say "I *heart* Israel," remember that, thanks to the government, you may as well *heart* Israel too, because your money is going over there just the same as if you sent it via charity.

• Amnesty International's 2004 Report on Israeli Human Rights Abuses
• Amnesty International's 2004 Report on Palestinian Authority Human Rights Abuses
• Texans for Israel

Austinite Michael Badnarik wins the Libertarian Presidential Nomination!

Hometown hero Michael Badnarik was chosen to be the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate over media moguls Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan. Going into the Convention, Badnarik was not the favorite, but at the Presidential debate (which aired on C-SPAN) he impressed the convention delegates with his calm manner, smooth delivery and extensive knowledge of the Constitution. I must admit, in watching the debates, I myself was won over. In any case, Badnarik will have 6 months to win you and everybody else over. I just hope Nolan and Russo contribute their media expertise and savvy to Badnarik's campaign. Badnarik's Website Badnarik's Acceptance Speech Q&A with Mr. Badnarik

It's a question of rhetorical sensibilities, not principle

In doing what I do, what I like to do, which is to advocate my political philosophy to those who might otherwise not hear it sensibly explained, I believe I've learned something. Now, during this Presidential election season, I believe it's important that we libertarians act through the political party it a way that will acheive the best results.

It is my view that most Libertarians do not understand that the other political parties, having no principles by which to guide thoughts about the perfect government or ideal society, never advocate anything other than individual actions and sets of actions that extend naturally from the status quo.

When the LP advocates the “ideal” libertarian government, they risk isolating themselves from the vast majority of the electorate, and put themselves at an enormous disadvantage against the other parties, as they are selling ideas and principles to those who have no use for principles and ideas that are far removed from their current situation. They're concerned about the here and now: "What are we going to do about Iraq?" "How come I don't have a job?" "Why is my child's school so bad?".

It’s the difference between standing on the top of some mountain and saying “Hey come over here!” to a person who's no mountain climber, vs. standing with them and showing them the way forward step by step. Most people may not even understand the posibility of the ideal government, but if instead you offer, lower taxes, reforming social security, less foreign intervention, blah blah blah, then, not only are you being more truthful (Badnarik, even if elected could not make many of the changes he proposes in the time he would have), but you would be selling something that people don’t have to use mental acrobatics to grasp, and thus they are more likely to evaluate it’s validity.