Tom Woods is certainly on a roll. He also has an argument going with conservative talk show host Mark Levin about a president’s power to declare war. Woods book, Rollback is perfectly timed also. Speaking of perfectly timed…the movie Atlas Shrugged is due out on April 15th in the States. (I had to throw that in)
says:Jon Blackman
Yes based on the interview i would read the book. Would it convert a warmonger though – provbably and sadly not
says:Tom Burroughes
The only problem with some libertarians such as Woods, and others, is that they regard anyone who does not follow their strict anti-interventionist, only-act-when-attacked-and-not-a-second-sooner, line, as “warmongers” or, ye gods, as “neocons”. I think it is a tad more complex than that. Some libertarians in the US, such as Randy Barnett (a noted scholar on the US constitution), or Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer and libertarian advocate of property rights in eminent domain cases, supported, for instance, the overthrow of Saddam.
says:Tom Burroughes
Actually, watching the interview leaves me with a very mixed impression. He’s saying that in wars, bad things happen. No kidding. I found the quality of some of the discussion to be inane, in fact. For instance, I have just finished reading Doug Feith’s War and Decision, which goes through in painstaking detail the case for removing Saddam Hussein, and I fail to see a warmongering, mad approach here, even if I don’t share all his conclusions. Far too much of the anti-war rhetoric of Woods and others is about making “boo” words such as “warmonger”, “imperialists”, etc.
Tom Woods is certainly on a roll. He also has an argument going with conservative talk show host Mark Levin about a president’s power to declare war. Woods book, Rollback is perfectly timed also. Speaking of perfectly timed…the movie Atlas Shrugged is due out on April 15th in the States. (I had to throw that in)
Yes based on the interview i would read the book. Would it convert a warmonger though – provbably and sadly not
The only problem with some libertarians such as Woods, and others, is that they regard anyone who does not follow their strict anti-interventionist, only-act-when-attacked-and-not-a-second-sooner, line, as “warmongers” or, ye gods, as “neocons”. I think it is a tad more complex than that. Some libertarians in the US, such as Randy Barnett (a noted scholar on the US constitution), or Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer and libertarian advocate of property rights in eminent domain cases, supported, for instance, the overthrow of Saddam.
Actually, watching the interview leaves me with a very mixed impression. He’s saying that in wars, bad things happen. No kidding. I found the quality of some of the discussion to be inane, in fact. For instance, I have just finished reading Doug Feith’s War and Decision, which goes through in painstaking detail the case for removing Saddam Hussein, and I fail to see a warmongering, mad approach here, even if I don’t share all his conclusions. Far too much of the anti-war rhetoric of Woods and others is about making “boo” words such as “warmonger”, “imperialists”, etc.