This message was self-deleted by its author

[LeftishBrit]

18. This comes from a hard-right libertarian site; and the author is a extremist libertarian who rejects

ANY role for the state (one of his articles on the site is headed 'Impeach the State') and wants everything run by the free market.

I do NOT want war on Iran. I have friends from there. I know Iranians are not some convenient geopolitical abstraction, but real people who would be killed, maimed, bereaved, at best ruined or driven into exile.

But right-libertarianism is another form of war, on the poor, the sick, the very young, the old -anyone who cannot manage without help, and ultimately that is all but the very rich, the very strong, and the very lucky. I do not use the word 'war' lightly. Lack of government support KILLS people. Lots of people. In Somalia, which is as close as one gets to a land without government, the average life expectancy is 50, and over 10 per cent of babies die in their first year of life. It was similar in the West 100 years ago, a time to which the paeleoconservatives would clearly like to return. Yes, a lot of the improvement in the last century is due to medical advances, but medical advances are no use if you can't afford or access them.

People like Rockwell and Rezoff are against war, not because war maims and kills (Rezoff is quite happy with the concept of using private armies for defence) but because it expands the role of government, and involves 'foreign entanglements'. Not everyone who opposes a war is a good person, or does so for the right reasons. Pat Buchanan (quoted in the article), the British National Party and the LePen family all oppose the recent wars. This does not mean that they are worth quoting or supporting (and the BNP and the LePens are probably LESS right wing economically than the Rockwell site contributors!) Paleocons are just as dangerous as neocons; just in a slightly different way.