An Intellectually and Morally Serious Antiwar Movement

As I said before, if there were an authentic grassroots anti-war movement, then the rallies wouldn't be dominated by fringers. Reading the comments is interesting, because a lot of people are saying the kind of stuff about A.N.S.W.E.R. that I've been saying for years. That sounds like good news, to me. I support the war, but I'm not afraid of an intellectually and morally serious antiwar movement. We just haven't had one of those.

-Glenn Reynolds

Is this perhaps that's because your neck has a permanent crick in it from staring to your left for the last three years, Instapundit? Because, as far as I can remember, the only right/libertarian antiwar argument you've paid serious attention to has come from Jim Henley only to summarily dismiss it because you "think he's wrong." Or: turning your head aside because veering the other way wastes time on those who don't "actually [affect] the debate."

My, how fucking "intellectually and morally serious" that is. The Professor Against Principled Argument once again proves how little his "libertarian" leanings matter.

There are a number of reasonable arguments to be made (and that were made) for this particular war, under this particular set of circumstances, for some certain particular reasons. I once bought in to most of them. Why did I change my mind, despite their persuasiveness?

The recognition of a fundamental idea: being the aggressor is wrong. Figure the vast implications of that for a moment. I did and I was shocked to realize I didn't really support private ownership of property. If I did, how could I advocate any taxation? How could I advocate allowing the state to have a monopoly in those classic, "only the state can do it" markets like defense and justice? How could I advocate the destruction of the lives and property of a foreign people because their leader was a bastard?

Some people think sticking to a morality is evidence of simple-mindedness. Yet they don't understand how tough it can be to take a stance and refuse to budge when people claim the lives and well-being of potentially millions are at stake. It burns me that people who claim to be working with reality fail so often to see the very real nature of the beast they pick as the best entity to do their work.

The end of tyrannies is a good thing in itself. Saddam and his enablers violated rights on a frightful scale. Those who support Hamas and Islamic Jihad in their mass-murderous goals are scum. The Republic of Iraq had no right to exist.

But the means to ends matter and I am anti-war because state war consists of immoral means to, in this instance, occasional good ends. Note that the "end" in question is limited to the end of the Iraqi government. It does not encompass the aftermath, which has been a cockup from the beginning because the immediate goal from that point on was to impose...another government.

Posted by Drizzten at September 26, 2005 02:30 PM