 |
 |
|
|
|
| Montréal, 24 novembre 2001 / No 93 |
|
Re: 11 SEPTEMBRE 2001: C'ÉTAIT ÉCRIT DANS LES ASTRES, le QL, no 92 En allant chez Jean-Coutu en fin de semaine passée (4 novembre 2001), j'ai vu une connerie comme je n'en avais pas vu depuis looooongtemps: Sur les étalages aux caisses j'ai jeté un coup d'oeil sur la feuille de chou à potins portant le nom de Dernière Heure (des éditions TVA, merci...) À la une de ce torchon, on pouvait voir trois astrologues ou médiums annoncer qu'il y aurait encore des attentats terroristes suite aux attentats du MAIS ALORS, BANDE DE CONS, SI VOUS ÊTES SI BONS QUE ÇA, COMMENT SE FAIT-IL QUE ---> P E R S O N N E <--- PARMI VOUS N'AIE PRÉDIT LES ATTENTATS DU 11 SEPTEMBRE?????? Quatre avions détournés simultanément, deux tours de 104 étages chacune qui s'écroulent la même journée et 6800 morts. Si l'astrologie, ça marchait, ça aurait dû être prévisible, non? Une bande de c..., rien d'autre!!! Normand
Martel
St-Hubert
 |
|
Even though I don't consider myself fully devoted to the libertarian cause, I have been recommending QL to all my friends, Franco and Anglo, telling them it was the only voice in Quebec affairs that (accurately) saw through labels like "Federalist" and "Separatist" and realized that both movements were Statist, and crippling to the prosperity of Quebec. However, since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, I can no longer support QL, or recommend it to friends. I have been horrified at the approving bandying about of phrases like "anarcho capitalist." I am assured by friends at the CATO institute that I am not alone in my belieft that libertarians are NOT the same thing as anarchists – or at least, they shouldn't be. But the way QL staff – in particular the formerly sane Martin Masse – have been writing in recent issues of QL, there is now little difference between the views expressed by your magazine and the hippy thugs who used the meetings in Quebec city, Seattle, Washington, and Genoa as an excuse to run riot. What you now have in common with these self-styled anarchists is an appalling belief that somehow the United States and Canada are not "true" democracies because their governments don't follow your ideology. Libertarians throughout North America know that, for all their imperfections, our societies are democracies, and they grant libertarians the freedom to argue the libertarian case on its merits. To throw around words like "fascist" and "imperialist" makes you sound more like Leninists than libertarians. This is ranting, not reasoned thought. It – along with a newly expressed strain of virulent Anti-Zionism which, legitimate or not, has nothing to do with libertarianism – draws shame on your publication. Nor does libertarianism necessarily mean that a nation should refuse the right to self-defense in the face of an attack. As I write these words, it seems likely that the so called "massacres" of Afghans by the US actually amount to some tragic, but sadly unavoidable, losses in a victory over the least libertarian regime in the world. The US is defending itself against an enemy which chose to declare war on the US, not the other way around. And it will probably turn out that the majority of Afghans view it this way, too, no matter what Martin Masse and his fellow traveler anti-war socialists at UQAM think. Sincerely, M.
Singer
Answer by Martin Masse: Dear Mr. Singer, I am a bit surprised to read that you are horrified by the word "anarcho-capitalist". The libertarian tent as I conceive it is a broad one, and the people at Cato have no monopoly on it. QL welcomes contributions from people who could be described as small-government libertarians (or minarchists) or no-government libertarians (or anarcho-capitalists). Anybody who is interested in libertarian ideas will have come across writings by anarcho-capitalist thinkers – Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans-Herman Hoppe, Lew Rockwell and many other Austrians connected with the Mises Institute, David Friedman (son of Milton), our own Pierre Lemieux, Bertrand Lemennicier and Pascal Salin in France, etc. These are not marginal and excentric writers, they are among its most dynamic elements. There is a crucial difference between the anarcho-communists and other left-wing anarchists who demonstrate violently at international meetings and anarcho-capitalists. The first believe the state AND private property should be abolished, whereas the second believe that private property should on the contrary serve as the foundation of the new order. That means attacking people and property as the thugs do is totally out of the question. Anarcho-capitalists are advocates of peace – indeed, they are among the few on the "Right" who consistently oppose statist aggression like the war in Afghanistan. I would advise that you visit www.mises.org, www.lewrockwell.com and www.antiwar.com to learn a bit more about this school of libertarian thought, since you've obviously missed something important. You are mistaken in believing that I have denied the right to self-defense in the face of an attack. On the contrary, I believe that's precisely what the U.S. should be doing but is not. Self-defense would mean trying to find and punish terrorists with police, not military, action, as has always been done in similar cases. It is perfectly possible to do so effectively – we hear that Spain for example has arrested eleven members of Al-Qaeda some days ago. What the U.S. has been doing in Afghanistan, on the contrary, is take side in a civil war that is none of our business, kill innocent civilians and destroy what little was left of their country. I find it absolutely immoral, when there are alternatives, to claim as you do that these deaths are "sadly unavoidable". I believe contrary to you that Zionism, just like any other political philosophy, can perfectly well be analyzed from a libertarian perspective. It is indeed a very telling illustration of how a good cause – finding a place in the world where Jews can live securely after centuries of persecution – will necessarily be perverted as it is hijacked by statist aims. The state of Israel is as much based on violence and coercition as any other state in the world. And today, Zionist ideology is just another fancy justification for killing and displacing Palestinians, stealing their land and colonizing what remains of it that is not already under Israeli control. I have a very clear libertarian opinion on the morality of 34 years of occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza, and I feel no shame at all in expressing it in my magazine. As for the question of U.S. imperialism, it is one that American libertarians have long been writing and talking about, and again there are crucial differences between the leninist and the libertarian perspective on this. I invite you to consult the resources mentioned above, the article À BAS L'IMPÉRIALISME AMÉRICAIN (le QL, no 78) which I wrote before the attacks earlier this year, as well as my editorial (I LOVE NY - NOT THE AMERICAN IMPERIAL TYRANT) in the current issue to learn more about this. I hope this will lead you to, if not reconsider your opposition to our view, at least realize that it is more complex than simple ranting. Regards, M. M. Bonjour, De tout temps, j'ai été un minarchiste (le terme signifie Comme la théorie de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, le libertarianisme que vous décrivez bute cependant toujours sur deux éléments fondamentaux. Premièrement, l'humain ne sait pas compter jusqu'à trois. Cette vérité bien connue en marketing signifie que l'individu moyen ne sait pas décider et agir en tenant compte d'une multitude de facteurs. En pratique, dans un environnement de libre marché, les décisions se prennent selon un ou deux critères principaux. Et la personne qui décide et agit a toutes les peines du monde à faire la part entre les objectifs à long terme de son entreprise, les demandes des actionnaires, ses objectifs de carrière, sa vie familiale, les contraintes environnementales, etc. Quand on laisse le marché complètement libre, la plupart des décisions auront des conséquences que le décideur ne peut prévoir si on ne l'a pas obligé à un peu de recul. Le décideur ne peut pas tenir compte, dans sa décision, d'enjeux indirects qu'il ignore. Il faut donc bien qu'une structure réglementaire existe qui puisse éviter les plus gros dérapages. Sans coercition, le décideur n'a aucun intérêt à être le seul ou le premier à renchérir ses opérations pour des considérations à long terme et externes. Tous ceux qui ont déjà été en affaires, ou même travailleurs autonomes, savent qu'à la longue on en vient à voir l'ensemble du monde à travers notre lorgnette professionnelle. D'ailleurs, à cet égard, l'homme d'affaires et le fonctionnaire se rejoignent paradoxalement: les deux sont ultimement préoccupés par le développement de leur petit monde dans le temps et dans l'espace (bien sûr, le premier a la décence de le faire avec ses propres ressources). Deuxièmement, l'humain n'est pas un ange. Toutes vos analyses présupposent que le décideur agit en fonction des intérêts à long terme de son milieu. Or, hélas, il n'en est rien et rares sont ceux qui peuvent affirmer n'avoir jamais pris de En résumé, s'il est vrai que la majorité des bureaucrates sont des parasites et que tout ce qui s'appelle Henri
Biner
Longueuil
|
Si vous en avez marre de vivre dans une société où l'hystérie nationaliste domine tous les débats; dans un pays où les taxes, les réglementations omniprésentes et le paternalisme des gouvernements briment la liberté individuelle et restreignent le dynamisme économique; dans une culture où le moutonnisme et l'égalité dans la médiocrité sont plus valorisés que l'individualisme et la compétition; dans un monde intellectuel où les soi-disant |
| << retour au sommaire |
|