Resident foreign policy expert of the Libertarian Union, Kyle Anzalone joins me once again to discuss his exceptional new article “Record Afghan Opium Crop Signals Violent Year for U.S. Forces,” co-written with independent journalist Will Porter. We discuss all of the great work Kyle is doing, promo his new website at Immersion News, and get detailed conflict updates from Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. This is a must-see episode, so be sure to view the video version on Bitchute or YouTube!
Follow Kyle’s Work:
The Foreign Policy Focus Podcast
Foreign Policy Focus at the Libertarian Institute
Episode 60 of the Liberty Weekly Podcast is brought to you by:
The Liberty Weekly Amazon Affiliate Link
The Liberty Weekly Patreon Page: help support the show and gain access to tons of bonus content! Become a patron today!
Our Liberty Classroom Affiliate Link
On the Liberty Weekly Podcast:
Understanding the Iran Protests Ep. 53
Turkey Invades Syria in Pursuit of Syrian Kurds Ep. 51 Feat. Kyle Anzalone
The Great Saudi Shake-Up Feat. Foreign Policy Focus Ep. 41
Record Afghan Opium Crop Signals Violent Year for U.S. Forces
Patrick,
You call yourself an Anarchist, yet you say you thought about calling your senator to ask him to pass legislation. This goes against the principles of true freedom from the state, by re-enforcing the political process and begging your elected officials to do things. An Anarchist does not take part in the political process. Just my two cents. Nice interview otherwise.
Thanks for the comment Scpat. Do you have the time stamp where I say this? It’s been a few weeks and I no longer listen to every episode after publishing. I don’t think there is anything morally wrong about asking the senator that “represents” you to refrain from doing something or to stop doing something. There might be a pride issue, but I don’t think that bugging my senator to refrain from foreign interventionism mars my anarchist cred. I’ll get into this a bit more in an episode I have planned today. Thanks for the listen and the comment though! I often fear that people will stop listening to my show because they didn’t like one thing that I said or because I didn’t elaborate something enough.
The time stamp is 56:23. I agree with you, there is nothing morally wrong with this because making a phone call is not agressing against anyone. The point I’m making is that by asking the politicians to do one thing or another is to admit that they rule us. It is to admit that their “power” over us is legitimate. To admit that they have the right to rule us. But they do not. That is the reason I personally would not take part in this. To paraphrase James Corbett, “we won’t beg for scraps from the master’s table, we will sit at our own table thank you very much.” Larkin Rose also makes a similar point in his video “How they see you” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf1rehiA-4
I really like your work and a disagreement with you wouldn’t make me throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Thanks for the reply, it’s great to be able to be able to discuss these things.
I appreciate that you wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
However I still respectfully disagree that it legitimizes their “ownership” or implies their power over me. By calling them to inform them that I do not support their being in Syria, I am only acknowledging that they wrongly believe they have the right to go bomb Syria, especially that they have the power to do so on my behalf.
To make an analogy, if I was a plantation slave and I saw “my” slavemaster about to attack another slave, or join a hunt to capture a runaway slave from a neighboring plantation, I do not believe that it would legitimize the slavemaster’s claimed ownership over me to tell him to abstain. It would not legitimize his claimed rule over me any more than if a free man expressed the same opinion to him.
Now, to differentiate this from voting, which I agree would imply an acceptance of the result and therefore their “rule,” me telling the reps not to bomb syria 1) is not a legal act with binding legal implications, and 2) does not imply an acceptance of the result or their legitimacy in doing so.
The reasons I called regarding syria are that I believed the possibility of global war was large and imminent, I believe war is mass murder, there was a very very low cost to me to make the call, and there was a real possibility, like in 2013 with Obama that if many people called and rose up, the attack would not go off.
I appreciate that you said there is nothing morally wrong with calling (and I suppose I was somewhat arguing against that point above). I could cop to sacrificing a bit of my pride. But I am not principled to the point where I won’t sacrifice my pride for a little pragmatism, but only if I can do so without going back on my morals or principles. I believe I haven’t and I think you agree.
Anyways, I had this discussion with Dtluna on my most recent show. Dont have the time stamp, but I think I articulated all of the above points there.
Thanks again for listening man! and like I said with DT, I am obviously not above reproach, no one is.
I appreciate that you wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
However I still respectfully disagree that it legitimizes their “ownership” or implies their power over me. By calling them to inform them that I do not support their being in Syria, I am only acknowledging that they wrongly believe they have the right to go bomb Syria, especially that they have the power to do so on my behalf.
To make an analogy, if I was a plantation slave and I saw “my” slavemaster about to attack another slave, or join a hunt to capture a runaway slave from a neighboring plantation, I do not believe that it would legitimize the slavemaster’s claimed ownership over me to tell him to abstain. It would not legitimize his claimed rule over me any more than if a free man expressed the same opinion to him.
Now, to differentiate this from voting, which I agree would imply an acceptance of the result and therefore their “rule,” me telling the reps not to bomb syria 1) is not a legal act with binding legal implications, and 2) does not imply an acceptance of the result or their legitimacy in doing so.
The reasons I called regarding syria are that I believed the possibility of global war was large and imminent, I believe war is mass murder, there was a very very low cost to me to make the call, and there was a real possibility, like in 2013 with Obama that if many people called and rose up, the attack would not go off.
I appreciate that you said there is nothing morally wrong with calling (and I suppose I was somewhat arguing against that point above). I could cop to sacrificing a bit of my pride. But I am not principled to the point where I won’t sacrifice my pride for a little pragmatism, but only if I can do so without going back on my morals or principles. I believe I haven’t and I think you agree.
Anyways, I had this discussion with Dtluna on my most recent show. Dont have the time stamp, but I think I articulated all of the above points there.
Thanks again for listening man! and like I said with DT, I am obviously not above reproach, no one is.