For years, pro-war types in the Libertarian Party have been saying that "because there is disagreement" over the Iraq War, we should therefore avoid discussing the issue. This is presented as some sort of pragmatic, fair-minded compromise.
The fault in this "logic" is that we are currently at war; war is the status quo, and silence always benefits the status quo. What's more, if we don't protest the Iraq War and a foreign interventionist policy in general, we're far more likely to have yet another war in Iran (which would suit many pro-war types just fine).
The War Party has what it wants. Why should they want to discuss the issue? Discussion brings change. Avoid the issue, remain silent on the issue, and the War Party wins.
Why should peaceniks accept rules of "compromise" that are calculated to benefit one side and not the other? We shouldn't. We should discuss the war in all Libertarian Party publications and at all Libertarian events. After we end the war, then we'll agree that everyone must stop supporting all future foreign interventions. Then we'll seen how keen the War Party is on silence.
When a Banyan Tree Hides the Secret to a Korean Enigma - About a hundred miles north of Bangalore, India, in the village of Thimmamma Marrimanu grows an eponymous banyan tree. There are all kinds of records for t...
3 hours ago