No silence here!

Honduras.

There. I just mentioned it. Wouldn't want some scold of a blog analyst to come along and ask why it is that only conservatives care about Honduras and where are the libertarians.

But which side am I on?

Why, the libertarian side, of course!

I can't help notice that Hugo Chavez is threatening to intervene in Honduras's affairs, and a lot of countries (including Obamaland) are expressing concern that the removal of President Zelaya was illegal:

The removal of Mr Zelaya has drawn criticism across Latin America and the wide world.

The Organization of American States held an emergency meeting, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for "the reinstatement of the democratically elected representatives of the country".

US President Barack Obama urged Honduras to "respect the rule of law" and a State Department official said America recognised Mr Zelaya as the duly elected president. The European Union called for "a swift return to constitutional normality".

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, blamed "the Yankee empire", and threatened military action should the Venezuelan ambassador to Honduras be attacked.

Hmmm...

Is there any way to support the Yankee empire in defiance of Chavez and Obama while still maintaining any shred of libertarian creds?

I don't know, but I'd hate to be accused of silence.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Lest I be misunderstood, I wrote this post to protest one of the things I most hate about blogging, and the blogosphere (if that term hasn't become outmoded....)

For me, blogging is a spontaneous act, a labor of love, even. The problem is that if you discuss things like politics and international events, the score keepers come along tallying up points and positions, with the clear intent to influence you, or to "hold you accountable," and inject the noxious notion of obligation. They have a right to do that, of course, but I think it's despicable, as it interferes with free thinking, and thwarts the creative process. Whether stifling creativity is what they want to do, I don't know, but from time to time, I feel that I must object. Of course, there's a contradiction there, as I don't like feeling obligated to object -- not even when I am objecting to an unwanted sense of obligation. The problem is, scolds are often driven by the idea that they're doing something good, like the people who want to invade your house and castrate your dog while screwing in new lightbulbs. And if you don't say anything, they'll think you're another passive idiot awaiting their divinely guided intervention.

No, no one has specifically asked me to blog about Honduras. It's just a news item which struck me as likely to fall into the blogligation category sooner or later, and I resent having my writing dictated by the whims of news items.

Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

MORE: My newsphobic resentment aside, I do think a good libertarian case can be made against supporting the the ousted president. People can read the details at Fausta's blog, via Glenn Reynolds.

posted by Eric on 06.29.09 at 09:52 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8449






Comments

Hard not to imagine that the driving force behind Pres. Obama speaking out in this case so much more forcefully, in support of a 'progressive/populist/leftist' president who wants to ignore constitutional prohibitions on an extention of his term, is that he is contemplating doing the same in 2016.

XWL   ·  June 29, 2009 02:46 PM

Donald Sensing has a different perspective.

Assuming he's right (as I trust he is, from experience), the Honduran military has a role much like that of the Turkish military; defending the Republic from civilian overreach.

If half of what's said about their "President"'s re-election is true, there's no reason for a libertarian to oppose his deposition by the military and the resumption of actual democracy.

Sigivald   ·  June 29, 2009 03:09 PM

Quick thoughts, facts and questions.

1) The President definitely was violating the law about referendum.

2) The Congress definitely could remove him.

3) Did the Constitution permit him to fire General Vasquez who defied him? The answer in the US would be "yes." In many nations it would be "no."

4) Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to order the President's arrest? Or the Attorney General to request it? Again, it isn't US law, it is another country.

5) I find no references to a Vice President being involved. But the Congress has appointed a new President, Micheletti.

6) Will the OAS give a hoot about what Honduran law says anyway? Or will they wing it based upon political considerations.

It looks like politics at the OAS. Without detailed knowledge of the Honduran laws and constitution, and of the OAS, can we be sure of anything?


K   ·  June 29, 2009 03:34 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


June 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits