This very long post, which you can read here
, is a continuation of "Libertarianism and Preemptive War: Part I
," which dates back to July 30, 2004. Part I addressed those libertarians -- mainly anarcho-capitalists, or paleolibertarians -- who oppose preemption regardless of the consequences of inaction. Part II steps back to look first at the fundamentals: defining preemption, confronting the nature of our main enemies, and explaining how preemption can serve liberty. That takes me to the second main section, in which I argue that "paleos" -- paleolibertarians, paleoconservatives and paleoliberals -- are not motivated by liberty in their criticisms of preemption, and that the agenda of paleoliberals is especially dangerous to liberty. In the concluding section I offer criteria for preemption, consider the future of preemption, and endorse Arnold Kling's politico-military strategy for dealing with our main enemies -- a strategy that incorporates preemption.
My bottom line:
It is time for our political leaders to come together to fight the enemy instead of each other. . . .With the semblance of a united front at home, America might be able to lead the West to victory in the long war against the irreconcilable wing of Islam. Without the semblance of united front at home, America and the West will go the way of failed nations since the dawn of history: from irresolution and corruption to impoverishment and subjugation. We are already far down the path of irresolution and corruption; the brink of impoverishment and subjugation is closer than we like to think it is. CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST.