EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Five Years On...
This week marks the fifth anniversary of Congress's vote to authorize the Bush Administration to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. The Nation opposed the war authorization. In "An Open Letter to Congress," which we published on the magazine's cover on the eve of the vote, we argued that it would have "a significance that goes far beyond the war." Our opposition has been fully, tragically confirmed by the human and political disasters of these last few years.
As we mark this anniversary, it is time to consider the longterm damage the grievously misconceived "war on terrorism" has inflicted on our security and relationship with the world. Eventually US troops will leave Iraq because the brutal facts on the ground will compel it. But even as we struggle for an exit strategy, our political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit from the "war on terror." At a time when we need a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine and an alternative vision of what this country's role in the world should be, we see both parties calling for intensifying the "war on terror" --even for increasing the size of the military, and for expanding its ability to go places and do things. But who is asking the fundamental question: Won't a war without end do more to weaken our security and democracy than seriously address the threats and challenges ahead?
Witness the collateral damage to our democracy. This Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture.
The Administration has also justified the expansion of America's military capacity--over 700 bases in more than 60 countries, annual military budgets nearing 700 billion dollars--as necessary to counter the threat of Islamic extremism. What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism--a brutal, horrifying tactic--is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world. Indeed, the failed Iraq war demonstrated anew the limits of military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy; withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians.
It is also worth remembering as we mark this anniversary that military invasion and occupation, and crusades masquerading as foreign policy, divert precious resources from real security. Five years ago, the doubts and warnings about military action in Iraq were brushed aside (including those clearly and consistently expressed by the Nation). Now that reality has confirmed the argument, isn't it time to act on the knowledge?
Alongside the get-out-of-Iraq debate, the political system needs a parallel debate that lays out how we will exit this "long war" -- which is a formula for unlimited militarization and recurring military conflicts. (As an industrial project for the arms industry, it could be even more open-ended than the Cold War.) We need a debate that confronts the danger of inflating a very real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war, to be fought simultaneously on countless obscure battle fronts, large and small, visible and secret.
Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario. They were silent when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" to hunt down Islamists on that continent. Nor they did object when CIA gunships bombed villages earlier this year in Somalia. When Bush announced intentions to increase Army troop strength by 90,000, many Democrats boasted it was their idea first.
To what end? These new troops won't be available for Iraq. Are they for the next war or occupation? The delusion of military power is deeply rooted.
We would do better--both in addressing the danger of a wider sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating terrorism--to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to contain the civil war from spreading. It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to the economic opportunity that peace and cooperation could bring.
A purposeful opposition must form to rethink America's role in the world. There are large and fateful questions to confront: What kind of country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire? Global leader or global cop? Where, as Sherle Schwenninger asked in the Nation's pages a few years ago, "is the America that is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder?" How can America act like an imperial power in a post-imperial world? Much can be accomplished by focusing on the questions that conventional opinion ignores. And starting the discussion now can help establish new terms and limits for the next president elected in 2008.
Concretely, Congress should be pushed to take legislative action to renounce the Bush doctrine of "preventive war." As The Nation warned on the eve of the 2002 war resolution vote, "the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war....It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth-- an objective never attained by any power....The new policy [of preventive war] reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them...It accords the US the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decided should be overthrown...It declares that the defense of the US and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force." Declaring the Bush doctrine of endless war defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future.
With the 2008 elections upon us, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.
A real security plan would widen the definition of security to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world -- reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.
Yes, at home, all this will take time and will have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring genuine national security.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
20 Comments so far
Show AllLuckily for us - a growing number of people are waking up to the fact that the American Empire is the greatest obstacle to world peace, and the biggest killer and enemy of mankind. It's a monster. The internet makes it very hard for the oligarchy to hide important information from seekers of the truth. They've had their turn and have failed miserably.
Power to the people, peace on earth, & international cooperation are aspects of the future, that the pitiful imperialist pigs apparently can't imagine.
——————
"I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation,
I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest,
nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains
that oppress my people through the will of the powerful.
Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy."
Oath used by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - the Great,
(when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends.
-copied from Page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones
==========
The revolutionary path is bathed in light. Take the oath and do what you can! To be complacent is to be complicit.
—————————
"Almost anything you do [to help humanity] will seem insignificant, but it's very important that you do it."
Mahatma Gandi
========
What is going on in the world?
http://www.Share-International.org
I've watched a few segments of "The War" by Ken Burns lately. One thing that's impressed me is how much the US accomplished in just 3 years and 9 months. From December 1941 through August 1945, we totally geared up for a massive war involving millions of people on two huge fronts, fought and won it. Here we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and no one will even say we'll be out by 2013. Simply amazing.
Some of the facts in 'The War' were astounding, for example we completed an entire airplane in a Detroit factory every 63 minutes. Unbelieveable!! Now they would have to wait a few months, possibly years to get all of the parts and peices together from all over the world and with price tags for shipping of 100.000 to ship two screws across this country. No wonder our troop do not have the proper equipment.. Who was running the show in WWII? Maybe there were not that many cronies in key places.....
This article is timid.
The main cause of insecurity in the world since 1945 has been the imperialism of the United States of America.
Terrorism is the warfare of the weak, the asymmetrical violence of those who are oppressed, humiliated, bullied, exploited, and harrassed for years and decades on end by the overwhelming force of another, mightier entity. Terrorism, in other words, is blowback.
The more than 730 U.S. military bases established over the Earth are the result of a deployment of force outside the boundaries of the territory of the United States that has been under way since 1945. It's an old story which began long before September 11, 2001, and to which 9/11 only gave the boost that the masterminds of U.S. imperialism had been seeking anyway (what in their writings, they call 'the new Pearl Harbor', from Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" to the Project for the New American Century's main doctrinal paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ).
As long as the U.S. has military forces stationed all over the globe, does not respect, refuses to endorse, or undermines international treaties (e.g., the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 Ottawa land mines agreement, the International Criminal Court established in Rome in July 1998 (which has jurisdiction over individuals, and which BushCo retroactively unsigned), or the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, etc.), violates the various Geneva Conventions, conducts covert operations against regimes not to the liking of its plutocracy, has contempt for the institution of the United Nations -- i.e., behaves not like a nation among nation, but like a tyrannical power driven by greed and the desire to subjugate the planet, there will be blowback, and that implies, among other things, terrorist violence.
The only way out of this situation is to dismantle the U.S. empire and to return the U.S. to being a nation among nations, respectful of others, and that, in the sphere of nations, abides by the golden rule, i.e., the moral imperative that one ought not to do to others what one would not want them to do to oneself.
Slight ommission from the end of the last sentence of my post:
the moral imperative that one ought not to do to others what one would not want them to do to oneself
sad to see the nation bottom feeding again in supporting the machiavellian concept pf the "war" on "terrorism"
the nation and here at cd as well there has been the conspiracy of cooperation in keeping the 9/11 false flag event - as a secret government conspiracy - like gulf of tonkin - that got us into vietnam; pearl harbor - the got us into ww2, and now 9/11 getting us into ww3, which will be the war to end all wars, believe me.
you want peace?
bring home all of the american terrorists in iraq, iran, korea, cuba, etc etc
this bullshit of spreading democracy is a farce.
we let the secret government blow jfk's brains out on national tv and 44 years later we still don't have the courage to bring justice to his killers.
the only fucks we bring justice to are cia assets living in caves.
thanks to the nation for supporting this bullshit.
grand day for the republic.
The difference between WW2 and the Iraq conflict is that one is a war and the other is a conflict.
The republicans, the media, and the president keep insisting that we are at war.
WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
No declaration of war has been made, no enemy has been identified, and no condition of victory has been established. They are the fundamentals of war and must be outlined before any actual war can begin. There is simply nothing at all similar between a war and this conflict.
Our troops are being used in an assist role to attempt to quell violence and secure the Iraqi government in the middle of a sectarian civil war. It is impossible to establish order and peace on a hot battlefield.
The reason that there is no end in sight is because the face of this conflict is continually changing.
Face 1. We attacked Iraq to 'disarm' Saddam Hussein.
Face 2. We attacked Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny.
Face 3. We have to prevent Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for terrorists.
The fact is that no attack was necessary, occupation is also unnecessary, and millions of lives have been destroyed. When is enough enough?
Katrina's article is well reasoned and reasonable. She must be talking to grown ups. I'm not sure that still works anymore.
"Global leader or global cop?"
How about neither, Katrina?
Oh, that's not on the table. The soft imperialism, pre-Shrub is perfectly acceptable. This entails subverting the US's opponents through "aid" programs that fund opposition groups in their home countries. It's the standard neo-liberal strategy since WW2. It's less bloody, but still a violation of people's national sovereignty around the world. That's the coded "leader" terminology.
I'd feel so much better about The Nation if a CIA employee (Max Holland) with a history of fabricating lies about the JFK assassination wasn't an editor there.
I'd also feel better if they weren't on a Jihad against finding out what really happened on 9/11. David Corn took the lead on discrediting the dissenters. No equal time has been given to the knowledgeable critics of the government's cover up, such as David Ray Griffin.
With so many demonstrable lies and omissions by the government's cover up "investigation", it should be a no brainer that outlets like The Nation demand the truth, and real investigations rather than the controlled sham we witnessed.
As for Katrina's new direction, the possibilty of closing down most of those 700+ military bases on foreign soil is nowhere to be seen. A little reorganizing, and some gunboat diplomacy should smooth things out, while we continue as "global leaders" to dominate with our invasive military presence. This is an establishment view, an insider viewpoint, with some opposition to the Bush junta, but mainly on tactics, not on the goal. Katrina keeps her eye on the prize.
The uninvestigated facts of 9/11.
P.S. Katrina,
How much foundation money does your rag accept? And from where, exactly?
And why, exactly?
"Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads."
It would appear Americans do not have a problem with where the military option leads, as long as the SUV tank is filled and Halo 3 is up on the big screen.
The rest of the world could make things easier on themselves by, right now, collectively dropping to their knees and agreeing that America is #1 and there is no reason to defy the natural order.
Do as we say and everyone lives. Well, mostly. Why is that so difficult to understand? Is the rest of the planet stupid or somethin?
five years on..passive visitors and readers...please start posting,anywhere you like,here at commondreams...we all want to hear from you,,,,
Katrina, we, as a nation of supposed freed people, need to get back to the foundational underpinnings established under the rule of law by our Constitution. Otherwise, we'll be co-opted by the forces of collusive internationalists who wish to enslave us.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, first and foremost, and a conservative Republican, second. When one talks about reducing the size of out-of-control Big Government... and the dismantling of the welfare state... in one breath... what is seriously being considered is awakening to the possibility that the fears and concerns our founders had about protecting our individual liberties... were timeless... and just as valid in our discussions today.
Americans, as a collective human body organized into a socio-political and economical unit called a Constitutional Republic - and much less so, as a democracy (though we employ some of its useful provisions) - need to realize that no nation ever conceived can survive living beyond its means forever.
It's an immutable law of nature which also applies to the single individual as well. Most of us understand what can happen when we don't take steps to prevent it.
When I think of welfare I think of two kinds: Favoritism shown individual private corporate business interests; and favoritism shown collectivist entities identified by class, race, gender, age, religion, geographic location, or income bracket, etc. - both of which are the kinds of welfare not originally charged within the rule of law of our Constitution to be meted out solely by the federal government.
The primary purpose of any government is to preserve, protect and defend our individual liberties... as enumerated in the Bill of Rights... and as contained within the strictures of the language in the governing instrument of the Constitution itself.
We, the people, must... once and for all... condemn this arbitrary patronage bestowed by the state's authority... as misguided and unconstitutional. We must refocus on what mechanisms were put in place under our Constitution to provide the needed redress for societal ills, grievances, and popular initiatives brought forth by the people. We must bring these issues up before the proper jurisdictions - whether at the local, state, or federal level - with a view towards keeping them localized wherever, and whenever, possible.
There is a danger in mindlessly growing the size, scope and authority of a central government... because there's a danger inherent to centralized planning... which assumes some people's rights as citizens can be coercively exploited or conveniently ignored... for the sake of an objective which exceeds that authority.
All possibilities are available to the people under our Constitution. But whenever the governing state's authority has been expanded beyond its legal limits, or the Constitution is abused just once, the citizenry has always been made to suffer.
One such abuse was the enactment of the 16th Amendment in 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson, who signed it into law.
He was also the president famous for unsuccessfully pushing for the creation of the League of Nations... which, of course, eventually was established... as the United Nations we know of today.
I would respectfully urge you and your readers to read up on what damage to our liberties this one single amendment to our Constitution has caused all of us. In effect, it illegally called for the creation of a central bank... controlled by private citizens... at a time when the only currency allowed to be put into use... was one created and efficiently managed by the federal government.
If you're unfamiliar with the circumstances which gave rise to this extra-legal creation of the Federal Reserve System and the personal income tax... please take the time... and brush up.
Likewise, look into what our founders had to say about getting caught up in "entangling foreign alliances" – exemplified by such things as GATT, WTO, SSP, NATO,IMF, CAFTA, NAFTA, WORLD BANK, FED... and the UN... among countless others.
For the most part, average citizens had very little if nothing to say whatsoever in the creation of these freedom-robbing alliances. But, nevertheless, they are exclusive – pitting one group against another – and their existence constitutes an infringement on our Constitutional rights as free persons living in a free society.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others a lot smarter and wiser than me, the illegal creation of the Federal Reserve System and the IRS management, collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax - more than any other errors slipped past the watchful eyes of the people... charged with defending themselves... from abuses of such authoritarian rule - have become those errors... which simply must be corrected... if we're ever going to stop the onrush of our own Republic's destruction... and prevent the looming encroachment of a one-world totalitarian state.
The corporatist bodies that have grown up around and fed most successfully into this system have colluded into one unifying force intent on controlling all of us!
Some have called these the money masters... or the puppet masters. And, to them, our national sovereignty... our rights as individual citizens in a free society... have become an obstruction, an impediment, a stone in their jackboots, so to speak... until such time as we, the people, rise up to block them in their unholy quest.
In absence of this defensive action... taken by an alarmed and informed citizenry... we are doomed to a socialist world... oppressive of our individual liberties... forever.
Though I've often thought of myself as a progressive democrat most of my 53 years... I've made a conscious decision to eschew the labels others have handed me... in favor of one which I freely choose to call my own.
I've seen through the false promises presented by the ideas of meritocracy... which can only exist... in fictional accounts of mob rule. Depriving just one citizen of their right to dissent... to go his own way... is anathema to freedom and justice... for everyone.
I am my own person; and I'm free and unafraid. Today, like Dr. Paul, I see through this masquerade... this circus menagerie being orchestrated by evil men intent upon telling me how to participate in their game-playing... and I'm not going to leave this earth... with this unconscionable travesty of justice... left in my wake... without a damn good fight!
Aren't you sick-and-tired of seeking permission to live your life as you... and you, alone... see is honorable and fit?
It's a given... that we were born into this world... naked... and without language.
What legacy will we leave to future generations of Americans... if we don't disregard our many straw man arguments... which keep us babbling and confused like illiterate innocent children... always demanding more from some hierarchical authority... that's found only in an unwieldy, out-of-control Big Government... if we leave it up to an invisible, unaccountable, quasi-parental construct... to tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives?
Hasn't this central planning authority vested in the federal government been allowed to overstep its legal bounds too many times already?
We adults created this monster over many years. But now we need to remind it who is still in charge. By simply focusing on our own... precious... individual... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... first... we can do wondrous things together!
Let's take back the idea of sound money. Let's take back our Republican form of government - but use democratic principles as they were intended by our Constitution.
If we destroy it, we destroy our freedom. We'll continue to see our liberties erode; and we'll be fated to be herded around... forever... like cattle.
Katrina, we may never have another opportunity to rise up against this tyranny in our lifetimes.
Among the current crop of presidential aspirants, only Ron Paul - yes, conveniently labeled a Republican - has expressed a principled desire to lead us out of this trap.
The rest of them - even the anointed Democrats - are either unwilling... or haven't a clue.
the 2008 election, if it even really happens, is not "upon us"
if you were an Iraqi trying not to get bombed you would not be waiting around for something so dim and distant. the world can't wait for u.s. politicians- or the Nation either for that matter- to do something.
also thanks for the advice about "fighting terror". so helpful.
tonight i was listening to free speech radio, and they were talking about the resolution on the Armeneian genocide, and explaining how it might cause difficulties with Turkey which is after all helping us so much in Iraq attacking Kurds and they gave us a sound bite from the pres of the u.s. who explained the resolution would be very bad cause it would harm our relations with Turkey blah blah and also impede the Global War on Terror. people make fun of how w. talks. sure it's funny but if for example americans "putting food on their families" is recognized a addled speech, how come more people don't find his global war on terror ten times more stupid and also lethal. to say nothing of how he recites the phrase daily to excuse his newest outrage.
You folks can't have it both ways. Either we will have an election where every candidate will do the same stuff Bu$h the inferior has done or they will sit calmly by and miss their chance to be president: THEY CAN"T BE DOING BOTH!
"This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world — reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half."
The US can never reduce its military deployments around the world without also torpedoing US economic dominance. This is the unspeakable truth, that economic growth is an evil; economic growth has become cancerous. It isn't even a matter of just turning to green technologies or better international solutions; the entire political & social structure must be entirely re-ordered, and the US has to accept a role in the world proportional to our population & our unfortunately low cultural level, and not to its hyperconsumption & formerly bloated reputation.
"What kind of country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire? Global leader or global cop?"
What about global participant ? Let's start there...
Laurence October 11th, 2007 7:01 pm:
"I would respectfully urge you and your readers to read up on what damage to our liberties this one single amendment to our Constitution has caused all of us. In effect, it illegally called for the creation of a central bank… controlled by private citizens… at a time when the only currency allowed to be put into use… was one created and efficiently managed by the federal government."
The 16th Amendment created the IRS and Federal Income Tax. It did not create a central banking system or the Federal Reserve. Those were created in the same year, 1913, by the same president, Woodrow Wilson, but under a different statute. Just thought that should be clarified.
In a related vein, I find it interesting how many people express the view that the income tax and IRS are unconstitutional and illegal. They are, in fact, one of the few government agencies established in complete compliance with Constitutional procedures, in that they were created using the amendment process. It's most of the other agencies created since (CIA, FBI, DEA, FAA, FTC, etc.) which are in fact illegal. Which is not to say they might not be necessary or even beneficial, just that they were created and given power through an illegal process in which Congress and the Executive shirk their Constitutional responsibilities in favor of simple expedience. It's been a long downhill slide ever since.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel has nicely articulated the vision Kofi Annan, and the UN under his leadership, put forth for real security for all the world's peoples -- that without economic security, health care, education and other elements of a peaceful and just existence -- no army in the world can bring, or keep, peace or reduce terrorism.
The Bush administration, of course, rushed John Bolton to the UN to strip that plan of hundreds of its provisions. His job description also included weakening the UN by word and vote until it would become a tool of US policy.
Well Jaydee I guess I should just shut up and let the IRS break down my door and punch me in the face, eh? How many people have had their lives turned upside down by this rogue agency known as the IRS? How many people have had their lives wrecked? The IRS has driven many people to their graves. So, why the hell do "progressives" want to give this gestapo organization even more greater power to terrorize people? Amazing! You say it's constitutional just because it's called the 16th amendment? I wonder what you have to say if there was a constitutional amendement banning same sex marriage or banning women from terminating a pregnancy. Silly me, you would say that is perfectly constitutional. Even though I am an American, sometimes I really despise my own people because they are such apes!!!
Laurence - Good post, but....
Our Constitution's Preamble mentions the regulation of commerce, providing for the general welfare, securing of domestic tranquility, etc. as also-intentended areas of legitimate government action. You seem to leave that out of your analysis, as well as any mention of how to legally deal with the (current) parallel power of artificially huge corporations.
What do you say about corporate personhood? PLease address this.
Agreed the fed gov is a monstrosity that needs drastic paring. But if civil government is shrunk to elemental functions without corresponding shrinkage of government-enabled, unnaturally concentrated corporate power, unelected/unaccountable corporations will dominate society even more than they do now. How would this prosper individual liberty?
If the Libertarian model is to gain wider credibility, it must deal with the problem of corporate power. Should state-chartered public corporations, which are simply government-enabled concentrations of private wealth, enjoy the political rights of personhood? Especially with few or no corresponding accountabilities? (please don't tell me shareholder democracy is the answer -- it's not realistic and never has been.)
Are you aware that corporations did not have such rights, earlier in US history? Have you studied-up on Why the libertarian-oriented framers of the Constitution feared allowing corporations the kind of power that could easily domminate the civil government itself? (i.e, the kind of personhood power they've now come to enjoy?)
I saw Rep. Ron Paul interviewed on the Lehrer report last night. I loved his intelligence, emotional depth, un-rehearsed candor, trust in individual liberty, etc. But he, like you (above) said nothing about the freedom-distorting influence of corporations as they exist now, in the US.
If Libertarians would deal with this question more openly (and I would say, realistically), the Party would begin to get more adherents -- I'm sure. I used to be a Libertarian, a long time ago. But I broke company with the Party because its theoreticians failed to deal with this issue; preferring instead to pretend that a genuine free-market model of society automatically resolves the problems of 'unchecked private power accretions leading to total domination of all societal institutions.'
At least understand that this is a sincere concern for many thoughtful people who are not socialists, or otherwise-fuzzy thinkers.