On the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, this is one thing I was curious about. McVeigh identified himself as a libertarian. He voted for Harry Browne while in prison back in 96. He was firercely anti-government as seen by the bombing of a federal building and revenge against Waco and Ruby Ridge incident.
Blowing up children tends to violate the NAP.
^^^^^^ This.
Is a libertarian defined by their actions or their beliefs?
Both at the same time:
[quote=“From “The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science” by Ludwig von Mises”]
Following in the wake of Kant’s analyses, philosophers raised the question: How can the human mind, by aprioristic thinking, deal with the reality of the external world? As far as praxeology is concerned, the answer is obvious. Both, a priori thinking and reasoning on the one hand and human action on the other, are manifestations of the human mind. The logical structure of the human mind creates the reality of action. Reason and action are congeneric and homogeneous, two aspects of the same phenomenon. In this sense we may apply to praxeology the dictum of Empedocles [knowledge of like is by like].
[/quote]
When the beliefs and actions of a person appear contradictory, you are misinterpreting one or both of them.
No he wasn’t. He was a neo-Nazi.
Do a search on Andreas Strassmeir and Elohim City.
Is a libertarian defined by their actions or their beliefs?
Unless you are saying he acted outside of his belief set, he did not believe in Libertarianism nor did he act as a Libertarian.
Perhaps he had libertarian beliefs but just got tired of trying to convince people he was right lol.
Which is impossible.
hmm interesting.
Then this is is definitely a time when actions speak louder than words.
-=Steve=-
“Was Tim McVeigh really a libertarian?”
We’ll answer that when we come back from the break…??
What is this?
What a dumb and annoying thread topic! I vote to delete it. Or change the tittle.
No, no he wasn’t. Pretty simple.
McVeigh was a military nutjob and mass murderer (talk about redundancy). Not a libertarian obviously.
There’s also a strong possibility that he was a patsy.
Absolutely.
At the time, I closely followed the bombing, the arrest of McVeigh and Nichols, and McVeigh’s subsequent “trial”.
I also spent a lot of time going over the photographic evidence of the actual destruction to the Murrah building.
I’m still of the [very strong] opinion that McVeigh was railroaded for political reasons, and that he had little, or nothing to do with what was essentially a false flag operation to remove the perceived threat of the burgeoning state militia movement by the Clinton administration. [We might well see repeats of this tactic under Obama -if it has not indeed already happened- several recent domestic incidents stink, big time.]
The Murrah building was destroyed by pre-planted explosives attached to internal building supports , as retired General Partin , an acknowledged explosives expert, conclusively proved.
McVeigh’s “trial” was a farce- nothing more than a kangeroo court where the Federal judge routinely denied evidence that would have proved his innocence, on a daily basis.
Obviously [to myself at least] the Judges strings were being pulled from somewhere high above [Reno, more than likely].
Anyone who believes that McVeigh got a fair trial in any way, shape, or form, is extremely misinformed, in my opinion.
It was a political trial plain and simple, and he was guilty before even entering the courtroom- he did not stand even a miniscule chance of an acquittal.
Furthermore, McVeigh’s subsequent confession to being the sole perpetrator was , as far as I’m concerned, nothing more than a valiant attempt to shift blame from his friend Terry Nichols and perhaps prevent Nichols’ own murder at the hands of the state .
The Murrah building was brought down by pre-placed explosives [ probably planted by government agents] .
It was/is physically impossible for fertilizer explosives in a truck parked outside to cause the type of extensive internal building damage that occurred that day.
All evidence to prove the pre- planting of explosives was [of course] denied a hearing by the judge .
Despite a rigged trial, the prosecution still failed to prove McVeigh got any closer to that building that day than 20 miles away.
Business as usual- I’m afraid.
Regards, onebornfree
Onebornfree, that was an interesting post although I don’t know what to really believe at this point. I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along.
I do believe that a libertarian is determined by their beliefs more than their actions. There are evil people who can self identify as a conservative, liberal, or constituionalist so I can’t see why McVeigh can’t be a libertarian.
No, he wasn’t.
I’d say if anything, he was a counter-modernist & militant traditionalist, considering his anti-technology views, but not at all counter-modernists & traditionalists are militant like McVeigh.
The view of him being a patsy is news to me, considering what little I’ve read of his essays makes it more or less clear he’d have no problem with carrying out bombings for his beliefs. It seems to fall into the backward rationalization patterns familiar with other popular views charging conspiracy, but then again, I admit not all conspiracy theories are without substance either.
There are people with radical writings all over the place. That doesn’t show in any way that they will actually carry things out or could even carry out the things that have happened over the years. Of course radicals with a twisted view of reality are the go-to people when they need patsies.
" I never really researched the bombings thoroughly. I just assumed that it was McVeigh (and some help from Nichols) all along."
No offense intended, but I am still constantly amazed by the number of people here who call themselves “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalist” yet consistently assume that the state is telling the truth, and hardly ever question its version of events- ergo, McVeigh must have been guilty.
At least you are honest enough to admit that you never did the research but still made the assumption.
In my [long gone] days as a libertarian, I never gave the state the benefit of the doubt on anything. Still don’t.
As the Bill of Rights attempted to ensure, I always tried to hold the state to a higher standard of truth than the defendant, and assumed the state was not telling the truth about anything, in every case, no exceptions, ever.
I consider this to be a perfectly healthy, rational mindset to adopt, but it appears I am in a tiny minority.
Oh well, I guess I’m just another nutcase!
Regards, onebornfree.