New at Reason

June 7, 2007

Michael Young goes searching for a libertarian foreign policy.

Comments

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 12:39PM|#

I would simply note that libertarians had a lot to say about why 9/11 occurred, what the appropriate response should be, etc. Now perhaps libertarians weren't particularly effective getting that message across, but that is a different sort of criticism.

|6.7.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Michael Young articulating a libertarian foriegn policy? Is it just that the US and Israel are given the liberty to do whatever it wants?

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 12:45PM|#

If war was the only means to alleviate that suffering, then it really made little sense to oppose war.

Isn't that a big if? This prompts me to ask: shouldn't the libertarian foreign policy be something like "be very fucking cautious what you do overseas?"

Franklin Harris|6.7.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Why is it that libertarians, for whom the benchmark of political, economic and social behavior is the individual, and American libertarians in particular, find so little to say about the defense of the individual in foreign affairs?

Because "defending the individual in foreign affairs" always amounts to killing lots of "enemy" civilians and taxing your own people into semi-slavery in order to pay for foreign wars of "liberation." Both are unacceptable for libertarians. What is hard to understand about this?

|6.7.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Because "defending the individual in foreign affairs" always amounts to killing lots of "enemy" civilians and taxing your own people into semi-slavery in order to pay for foreign wars of "liberation." Both are unacceptable for libertarians. What is hard to understand about this?


Becase despite you loud rhetoric you still havent reconcilled your 'libertarian?' posistion on the defense of the individual in foreign affairs. We get it; you dont like taxes and want to avoid collateral damage. But you still havent said anything about when, if ever, and what price, why and why not its worth considering comming to a defenese of a foreign people.

So you were OK with Saddaam gassing the Kurds then, as long you werent taxed then? I'd imagine and hope your answer is a resounding NO. But then you must still address that specific issue, rather then doing the 'hey look over there' and pointing to overtaxation.

Edward|6.7.07 @ 1:04PM|#

I think maybe Michael Young is departing to much from the received orthodoxy to get a fair hearing.

Franklin Harris|6.7.07 @ 1:07PM|#

I'd imagine and hope your answer is a resounding NO.

I have problems with lots of things, none of which give me the right to use other people to "solve" my problems. Of course, if you have a problem with it, a libertarian foreign policy would let you and Christopher Hitchens and whoever else wants pick up your rifles and go fight Saddam to your hearts' content.

|6.7.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Do Arabs "deserve repression?" To a great extent, yes, we all deserve the government we tolerate. Most libertarians, I think, would be happy to support various Libertarian Liberation Armies, if such existed in these hell-holes. And most would be happy to boycott goods, services, tourism, etc. tied in with pieces of shit like Sadam Hussein, Chavez, various Africans, etc. if said boycott was hurting the ruler more than the people.
Sadly, the libertarian movement has no mechanism to make real such support and protest. We are too busy circulating petitions to get some non-entity paper candidate on the ballot who can score a big 1%.

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Edward,

Well, whether that is the case or not, the idea there were no alternative voices on foreign policy following 9/11, etc. (which appears to be one of the main points of this article) is, well, silly.

A far more interesting question is - and here, let us assume the following is true for the sake of argument - why didn't the Bush administration take those voices into consideration?

robc|6.7.07 @ 1:10PM|#

why and why not its worth considering comming to a defenese of a foreign people.

When the people doing the attacking (or their allies) attack us, it might make sense to defend a foreign people as a means toward defeating our now common enemy.

Ex: Once Japan attacked us, it made sense to come to the defense of England/France as a means of defeating the Japan/Germany/Italy alliance.

|6.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Instinctive libertarian pessimism towards social engineering is, I think, the root cause of libertarian foreign policy ambivalence. I don't seriously think my government is capable of shaping social conditions in my own country let alone a foreign, and possibly hostile country. Direct intervention -- most often military in character -- is such a rough tool that it often has an effect completely opposite to our intent (my primary example of this ought to be pretty obvious).

None of this implies that I'm indifferent to the plight of repressed foreign populations. But it does imply that I won't waste my energy on the idealistic schemes du jour that animate Mr. Hitchens and his lot. I'm so sorry, Mr. Hitchens, but we have no magic wands here.

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Edward,

I will also note that the primary focus of argument for the war by the Bush administration was - from my perspective - the danger that Saddam presented to the U.S.

|6.7.07 @ 1:15PM|#

I would suggest that if Mt. Young is truly interested in finding a libertarian foreign policy - no, make that the liberarian foreign policy - he might start with John Quincey Adams:

http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Chris S.,

To echo you a bit, it is simply the case that to go mucking around in another country presents a whole host of known and unknown problems that are as likely as bad or worse than what currently exists in that nation. These facts don't make libertarians heartless, it makes them cautious (and indeed, caring).

|6.7.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Ex: Once Japan attacked us, it made sense to come to the defense of England/France as a means of defeating the Japan/Germany/Italy alliance.

But not untill then? So the atrocities in Eastern Europe were not enough to justify an intervention based on your 'libertarian' ideology?

Direct intervention -- most often military in character -- is such a rough tool that it often has an effect completely opposite to our intent (my primary example of this ought to be pretty obvious).


But it also often has positive outcomes, Balkans, Korea, the cold war. So maybe then the argument is against the execution of specific facets of foreign intervention rather then its compatibility with a libertarian doctorine as a whole.

|6.7.07 @ 1:19PM|#

I think that our "foreign policy" should focus on how best to help other countries become richer and better educated so that the people in those countries can fight their own battles. I also think we should not be going around calling possibly hostile states evil and rattling our sabres. That seems like a good way to pick a fight, not keep things peaceful.

Now, if there really are a bunch of terrorists out there, acting without any government's sanction, that's a tougher question. But I would still postulate that real free trade on a global scale would go a long way towards quieting those voices.

|6.7.07 @ 1:20PM|#

"Only the neocons, it seemed, had an explanation for why 19 young men from the Middle East had decided to kill thousands of innocent civilians for no apparent reason. The neocons claimed that a major problem was the dearth of democracy in the Arab world, which had turned frustrated youths into mass murderers."

As the possibility that the U.S. will bring democracy to the entire Middle East continues to dwindle, sliding from a probability of 0.00001% to 0.00000001%, Michael Young lunges for straws of his own manufacture. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq independently of any "analysis" whatsoever. For reasons that, to me at least, are still murky, the right wing had become obsessed with the "necessity" of ousting Saddam and establishing the U.S. as the sole and supreme military power in the Middle East.

The real reason that Al Qada was able to recruit 19 young men, 15 of them Saudi, to launch a suicide assault on the U.S. was the continuing presence of U.S. troops on "sacred" Saudi soil. People like Paul Wolfowitz knew this at the time, but this truth has been concealed from the American people.

As has become painfully clear, the process of re-arranging the psyches of 100 million Muslims has proved more trying than the neo-cons had dreamed. Secularism has established itself in the West not because everyone agreed it was a good idea, but because Catholic and Protestant force had beaten themselves to a standstill. After two centuries of conflict, it was clear that neither side was going to win. A very large percentage of Middle Eastern Muslims are, by western standards, still living in the Middle Ages. John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill sound like a bunch of idiots to them.

I believe the West will prevail, easily. But we won't be doing it any time soon. And our continuing presence in Iraq is just as likely to retard progress as it is to support it. Muslims will come to secular democracy when it makes sense to them, and it does not make sense to them when shoved in their faces with an American bayonet.

Franklin Harris|6.7.07 @ 1:22PM|#

John Quincey Adams wins.

|6.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Can one of our entrepreneurs, somewhere somehow, put JQ Adam's words on a poster for us to proudly display?

robc|6.7.07 @ 1:30PM|#

So the atrocities in Eastern Europe were not enough to justify an intervention based on your 'libertarian' ideology?

Correct. And isnt just a libertarian ideology. Apparently it was FDR's too.

|6.7.07 @ 1:37PM|#

But it also often has positive outcomes, Balkans, Korea, the cold war. So maybe then the argument is against the execution of specific facets of foreign intervention rather then its compatibility with a libertarian doctorine as a whole.

I agree with that, but I don't necessarily agree with your examples. For instance, the cold war wasn't a "war," per se, and a good amount of our foreign intervention in that period backfired. I have no good answer as to why we "won" the cold war, but I suspect that Soviet economic and political mismanagement played a pretty strong role.

|6.7.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Correct. And isnt just a libertarian ideology. Apparently it was FDR's too.

Maybe you should read FDRs four freedoms speech before you bring him up as an example.




In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is Freedom of worship. That is, freedom of every person to worship whomever (be it God, or any other deity/deities) in his own way - everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

fyodor|6.7.07 @ 1:44PM|#

The pure libertarian position is that what happens outside a nation's borders is none of its business because it is outside that nation's jurisdiction.

Simple as that.

Now, is that the best foreign policy? Maybe, maybe not. But anything other than that cannot be called a libertarian foreign policy if by libertarian foreign policy one means one that comports with libertarian principles. If by libertarian foreign policy one means one that is supported by either people who identify themselves as libertarian or who follow libertarian principles most of the time, well then it might potentially be anything.

I believe strongly in libertarian principles, that's why I call myself a libertarian. But (despite what some might think, like my girlfriend!), I'm not an absolutist.

I think what would make for a good foreign policy (like any governmental policy) would start off with an acknowledgement of what comports with libertarian principles. (I think this should be the case for anyone, not just libertarians, though of course I realize that nonlibertarians would beg to differ.)

Then if you think that for some reason this is not the best idea, make your case. I'll listen. But don't try to tell me that government actions that violate libertarian principles make for a more genuine "libertarian" policy.

And BTW, while I'm listening, I'll be considering how we screwed up in Iraq and Viet Nam and how government programs are generally screwed and should generally be limited to when they're absolutely necessary for fear of violating people's rights and doing more harm than good. But I'll still listen.

Jim Henley|6.7.07 @ 1:45PM|#

One might dispute the neocons' interpretation, and condemn its outcome, but the fact is that when decision-makers in Washington were looking for insights into what had happened and tried to do so, like most Americans, by explaining the individual motivations of the hijackers, libertarians, political realists, and much of the left had little to say.

What a fucking moron.

|6.7.07 @ 1:47PM|#

I agree with that, but I don't necessarily agree with your examples. For instance, the cold war wasn't a "war," per se, and a good amount of our foreign intervention in that period backfired. I have no good answer as to why we "won" the cold war, but I suspect that Soviet economic and political mismanagement played a pretty strong role.

I agree that the cold war example is contentious. But I think with out the US there putting checks on Soviet expansion, the Communist collapse would have probably taken longer, and when it did happen many more people would have ended up living in the mess that followed after.

fyodor|6.7.07 @ 1:50PM|#

I should add to my last post that my personal concern about individual rights and my acknowledgement of what constitutes violations of those rights do not end at my nation's borders, only my government's legitimate authority to enforce those rights.

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 1:51PM|#

val,

What does that have to do with FDR's (or Truman's or Churchill's) specific policies towards Eastern Europe before or during?

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 1:53PM|#

fyodor,

You might also wish to consider the innumerable nation-building disasters the U.S. has been involved in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

robc|6.7.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Grotius,

I dont get the connection either.

Regardless of what FDR said, his actions speak loudly. We went to war after we were attacked.

|6.7.07 @ 1:56PM|#

The pure libertarian position is that what happens outside a nation's borders is none of its business because it is outside that nation's jurisdiction.

Simple as that.

Now, is that the best foreign policy? Maybe, maybe not. But anything other than that cannot be called a libertarian foreign policy if by libertarian foreign policy one means one that comports with libertarian principles.

fyodor, which tenent of a libertarian policy would for example assasinating Sadam instead of invading Iraq violate?

robc|6.7.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Grotius,

You might also wish to consider the innumerable nation-building disasters the U.S. has been involved in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Thats a little unfair, Haiti has been nothing but a success.

|6.7.07 @ 2:00PM|#

What does that have to do with FDR's (or Truman's or Churchill's) specific policies towards Eastern Europe before or during?

I was replying to robc's suggestion that non-intervetionism was FDR's idelogy as well as his.

And before pearl harbor ever happened FDR was already building up the armed forces. His efforts were decried by true non interventionists of the time.

robc|6.7.07 @ 2:05PM|#

val,

Im pretty sure FDR would have gone to war earlier if it had been solely up to him. But, not being The Decider, he had politics stopping him. After Pearl Harbor, things changed.

I dislike almost everything about FDR, I just happen to know his action was right in this case, even if his motivation was purely political.

Franklin Harris|6.7.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Only the neocons, it seemed, had an explanation for why 19 young men from the Middle East had decided to kill thousands of innocent civilians for no apparent reason.

Michael Young could stand to read the books on Ron Paul's reading list for Rudi Giuliani.

|6.7.07 @ 2:21PM|#

val,

Im pretty sure FDR would have gone to war earlier if it had been solely up to him. But, not being The Decider, he had politics stopping him. After Pearl Harbor, things changed.

I dislike almost everything about FDR, I just happen to know his action was right in this case, even if his motivation was purely political.


robc,

I understand your position. What I disagree with you on is the fact that you are trying to deliver the isolationist policy as the one true libertarian position. It is not. Its a paleo conservative position. Libertarianism, borrow heavily from all types of 'disciplines'.

I am still waiting on some to clearly explain why foreign intervetionism, (ie comming to the defense/aid of a foreign people) violates liberatarian principles.

And as far as nation building, we both agree, thats not what the army is designed for. They suck at it. The thing that they do actually do very well is exactly their intended purpose.

Grotius|6.7.07 @ 2:22PM|#

robc,

Yeah, we've only invaded the place twice.

|6.7.07 @ 2:38PM|#

"Why is it that libertarians, for whom the benchmark of political, economic and social behavior is the individual, and American libertarians in particular, find so little to say about the defense of the individual in foreign affairs?"

This is a bit like asking why libertarians don't have a distinctive program for central planning.

...Is there a libertarian way to seize political control of a foreign country and forcibly remake its culture?

It's like asking PETA people to come up with an animal rights way of bludgeoning rabbits.

"However, and let's be blunt here, in the absence of a serious critique on how to address deficiencies in freedom overseas, libertarians, "realists", and those on the political left ceded vital terrain to the neoconservatives...

Forcibly trying to remake other people's cultures is as wrongheaded an approach as trying to remake their economies. ...and for the same reasons.

Self-defense makes sense. ...and I'm all for it.

fyodor|6.7.07 @ 2:43PM|#

fyodor, which tenent of a libertarian policy would for example assasinating Sadam instead of invading Iraq violate?

I guess I have to repeat myself.

The one that says that a government's legitimate authority is limited to its legitimate jurisdiction.

Now, if one wants to argue, as you seem to imply, that it's possible that violating that principle in one particular instance may prevent a more egregious violation subsequently, well then maybe, possibly, perhaps that will convince me that violating the principle in the case in question is a good idea. But it's still a violation the principle, and it's only egregiously confusing the issue to argue that it's not.

TallDave|6.7.07 @ 2:44PM|#

The question of Afghani and Iraqi civil rights is one that seems to divide libertarians across a couple lines: first, there is the divide between nativists, who reject any idea of a responsibility to help them, and universalists who believe every human being's liberty should be important to us. Second, among the latter, some believe it was noble to bring the repressed some sort of liberal democracy despite the price, while others believe the ensuing (and enduring) chaos in those countries has been too a price for the liberty achieved.

Im pretty sure FDR would have gone to war earlier if it had been solely up to him.

He did quite a bit anyway. Lend-Lease was a massive commitment that put us pretty solidly on one side, and blockading Japan was arguably an act of war.

But, not being The Decider,

Oh, FDR claimed powers Bush wouldn't dream of pursuing. He tried to stack the Supreme Court both by forcing retirement of judges he didn't like and creating many new SCOTUS positions (which he would fill), bugged his political opponents and the media, threatened the media with government takeover if they didn't give him positive war coverage, took third and fourth terms in office in contravention of tradition, and overall was the closest thing to a dictator we ever had.

|6.7.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Which libertarian foreign policy are we talking about? The one the neolibertarians espouse which says we must initiate force upon Muslim Arabs before they initiate force on us? Or the classic libertarians who say we are only justified if we or our friends are attacked?

I'm in between, but much closer to Ron Paul than Neal Boortz.

The imminent threat argument is compelling, and justified in my opinion. But the evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat to anyone but Iran was weak. Hindsight is of course, 20/20, but that was no excuse for half a decade of mismanaged nation building.

PintofStout|6.7.07 @ 2:49PM|#

If libertarianism is an ideology of individualism, and in the more extreme cases disregarding the idea of nations altogether, why do they need to have a "policy" of any sort for the "nation?"

|6.7.07 @ 2:51PM|#

The one that says that a government's legitimate authority is limited to its legitimate jurisdiction.

Well I would first of all take issue with the legitimate jurisdiction argument. In 1991 the only principled actors in your opinion would have been Iraq and Kuwait, correct? So with Kuwait failing to defend itself it was now to become part of legitimate jurisdiction of Iraq?

Also are not libertarian principles first and foremost individual freedom principles. They describe the relationship citizens and its suject government. The relationship between states thus falls outside the scope of liberatarian principles and is open to interpretation.

TallDave|6.7.07 @ 3:01PM|#

The one that says that a government's legitimate authority is limited to its legitimate jurisdiction.

But what princple gives a government "legitimate jurisdiction?" If we accept that governments really do derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, what's to be done about governments who are illegitimate, i.e. those that are not liberal democracies? While in a practical sense we can surely agree it is neither possible nor advisable to try to right every such wrong, we should also be able to agree such governments deserve no protection deriving from a concept of "legitimacy."

The one the neolibertarians espouse which says we must initiate force upon Muslim Arabs before they initiate force on us?

It's worth noting that in Afghanistan and Iraq we have erected security institutions in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims are working to fight Al Qaeda and defend some sort of relatively liberal, relatively democratic states.

fyodor|6.7.07 @ 3:04PM|#

The relationship between states thus falls outside the scope of liberatarian principles and is open to interpretation.

So you're saying that there essentially is no libertarian foreign policy, that libertarianism, as a philosophy that flows from certain core principles (as opposed to what "libertarians" think at any particular time) simply does not address the matter, just as it does not address which toothpaste is the best to buy?

I think that government is inherently limited by strict principles is at the heart of libertarianism, and one of those limitations is called jurisdiction. You seem to understand this yourself when you say that libertarian principles "describe the relationship citizens and its su[b]ject government." I don't think people outside our border who are not citizens of the US are legitimately subject to our government.

|6.7.07 @ 3:14PM|#

I don't think people outside our border who are not citizens of the US are legitimately subject to our government.

Thats a fair argument, but that still leaves us with the my first argument and what TallDave is saying. Those people might not be legitimately subject to their government either.

So you're saying that there essentially is no libertarian foreign policy, that libertarianism, as a philosophy that flows from certain core principles (as opposed to what "libertarians" think at any particular time) simply does not address the matter, just as it does not address which toothpaste is the best to buy?

Exactly. I dont think that foreign intervention violates libertarian principles because there are no libertarian principles described for that situation. We can argue that its not supported by them either, but I dont see how its prohibited. So I take issue, and not with you specificaly, when people here claim that isolationism is the true liberatarian foreign policy, because as far as I can see it doesnt exist. Its a paleo conservative concept (hence the term neo conservatives)

As a side note; Ron Paul is not libertarian he is a paleoconservative.

uncle sam|6.7.07 @ 3:30PM|#

So you were OK with Saddaam gassing the Kurds then,

Have you any idea where Saddam got that gas?

fyodor|6.7.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Those people might not be legitimately subject to their government either.

That some people may not be legitimately subject to the government that claims legitimacy over them does not make them legitimately subject to our government.

FWIW, I take my understanding of libertarianism primarily from David Bergland's "Libertarianism In One Lesson," which I read almost 20 years ago in which he sums up the libertarian foreign policy as being one of neutrality and nonintervention. He probably explained better than I did how that is derived from libertarian first principles. Under your formulation, a state can do anything it wants outside its borders without violating libertarian principles. Not an inviting prospect.

Edward|6.7.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Val

You must have missed Ron Paul's Libertarian canonization.

|6.7.07 @ 3:35PM|#

So, Michael Young is suggesting that George Bush went with the advice of the neocons because libertarians weren't vocal enough in explaining why 19 young men would commit an act of terror in the US. Libertarians don't have any foreign policy position? Come on Michael, say you don't really believe that. I thought libertarians have always been very vocal about the kinds of trouble our foreign intervention causes. Ron Paul, especially, has been consistently vocal about this during his entire tenure in Congress. When in the second debate he once again touted the "libertarian" foreign policy, Rudy Guiliani claimed to have never heard it before. Just because someone claims ignorance of it doesn't mean that libertarians haven't been both articulate and eloquent. George Bush didn't go along with the neocons because libertarians didn't offer a better solution. George Bush went along with the neocons because he was looking for any excuse to spread our empire and meddle more in the middle east. To suggest that "if only libertarians had a position on foreign policy and had just articulated it to King George he would have not pursued his mad agenda" is devoid of reason. I would add "Gee, for a magazine called Reason..." But, I think the point is made.

|6.7.07 @ 3:38PM|#

"
...Is there a libertarian way to seize political control of a foreign country and forcibly remake its culture?

It's like asking PETA people to come up with an animal rights way of bludgeoning rabbits."

Ken Schultz, I think you won the thread, together with John Quincy Adams.

|6.7.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Those people might not be legitimately subject to their government either.

Uh, so what? How does this place an obligation on, or even give a right to, our government to intervene on their behalf?

I dont think that foreign intervention violates libertarian principles because there are no libertarian principles described for that situation. We can argue that its not supported by them either, but I dont see how its prohibited.

Perhaps it isn't prohibited, but for practical purposes it makes sense from a libertarian standpoint to minimize the govt's international activities (especially war). War being the health of the state and all.

|6.7.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Under your formulation, a state can do anything it wants outside its borders without violating libertarian principles. Not an inviting prospect.

I didnt mean thats the way it should be, but the way it is now. That why that piece of it is still open to interpretation/delliberation. But since we dont have a libertarian state anyways, that point is moot.


FWIW, I take my understanding of libertarianism primarily from David Bergland's "Libertarianism In One Lesson," which I read almost 20 years ago in which he sums up the libertarian foreign policy as being one of neutrality and nonintervention. He probably explained better than I did how that is derived from libertarian first principles.

I would be curious to see how he derived that position from first principles as well. Maybe I'll look up that book, because so far I havent seen a satisfactory explanation.

Have you any idea where Saddam got that gas?
No of course I dont know any of that. Please enlighten us since it has such dire relevance to the discussion at hand.


You must have missed Ron Paul's Libertarian canonization.

Danggit, they must have decided not to invite me to the ceremony because off all the complaining I did regarding his foreign policy views over here.

|6.7.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Well, since Michael Young is dictating the new libertarian foreign policy, I can't wait for Shikha Dalmia's article on libertarian environmental policy (read: a Hummer in every driveway), and Dan T.'s take on libertarian Netiquette.

|6.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Re: the earlier exchange: "Because "defending the individual in foreign affairs" always amounts to killing lots of "enemy" civilians and taxing your own people into semi-slavery in order to pay for foreign wars of "liberation." Both are unacceptable for libertarians. What is hard to understand about this?


Becase despite you loud rhetoric you still havent reconcilled your 'libertarian?' posistion on the defense of the individual in foreign affairs. We get it; you dont like taxes and want to avoid collateral damage. But you still havent said anything about when, if ever, and what price, why and why not its worth considering comming to a defenese of a foreign people.

So you were OK with Saddaam gassing the Kurds then, as long you werent taxed then? I'd imagine and hope your answer is a resounding NO. But then you must still address that specific issue, rather then doing the 'hey look over there' and pointing to overtaxation."



It's not our job to come to the defense of foreign people, period. It's our job to defend ourselves if we're attacked. The only two wars in the last century we had any business being involved in were WWII (because of Pearl Harbor) and Afghanistan (because of 9/11).

|6.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#

No of course I dont know any of that. Please enlighten us since it has such dire relevance to the discussion at hand.

Ha ha ha. Watch out val, there's a steep learning curve ahead.

|6.7.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Perhaps it isn't prohibited, but for practical purposes it makes sense from a libertarian standpoint to minimize the govt's international activities (especially war). War being the health of the state and all.

Now we are finnaly getting somewhere. We are begginin to talk about acceptable levels of foreign intervention, rather then it being a libertarian equivalent of incest.


Ha ha ha. Watch out val, there's a steep learning curve ahead.


Dang, you think he took me seriously? Im so outta here.

|6.7.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Of course, it's also pretty laughable to say that GWB couldn't have known of any other foreign policy strategies besides the neocons', considering he freakin' campaigned on "a humble foreign policy" in 2000, and an end to the incessant nation-building adventures of the Clinton years.

|6.7.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Really, val, I want to tell you who gave him the nerve gas, along with a lot of other military support, but I don't want to steal Uncle Sam's thunder.

Crap, I think I just told you.

|6.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#

It's not our job to come to the defense of foreign people, period

Ok what if you were to look at it as more of a hobby then a job?

How about if they created armed divisions with in each branch of the military whose stated purpose will be offensive warfare. And then recruits would have a choice if they want to enlist for service in that division. We couldnt start a charitable fund, where the money would be given to the soldierls enlisted in these new division on top of their standard army pay. Then it would our job. Would that be ok?

|6.7.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Michael Young is the most consistently full of shit poster that "graces" Reason. What the fuck he is even doing here I don't know.

Hey, Mikey--where's that great big "democracy" parade you were ranting about a couple of years ago?

|6.7.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Great idea, val. I fully support your right to create an international army of human rights, with your own money and your own recruits.

However, I'd prefer that the actual US armed forces be used only for defending the US. But good luck to you and your hypothetical champions of global freedom.

|6.7.07 @ 4:08PM|#

TallDave and Val,

Not to repeat myself, but many people you (TallDave) might describe as "universalists" don't disdain foreign interventionism because of the price, but because of its proven efficacy, or lack thereof.

I would love it if the Iraqi people had a "liberal democracy," but I don't think we can buy this at any price. I'm not convinced that sheer American will can alter the social dynamic of a foreign country.

Similiarly, val, I don't like the idea of Saddam gassing the kurds, but that doesn't mean I beleive that I or my government can descend upon Iraq and rebuild that state to inocculate it against further human rights abuses. And when I say "can," I'm not talking about justification or price; I'm talking about feasibility.

|6.7.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Val, to answer your query: "I am still waiting on some to clearly explain why foreign intervetionism, (ie comming to the defense/aid of a foreign people) violates liberatarian principles."

Because foreign interventionism violates the principle of non-initiation of force. And, before you say, but the bad guys initiated force against The Children over there, the principle is that until someone attacks you, or the self-defense society that you belong to, any intervention on your part is initiation of force. The thug ruling Zimbabwe is certainly initiating force against people in his country, but not against us, so if we subscribe to libertarian principles, we leave him alone unless he overreaches and attacks us.

And, yes, in certain isolated instances this might not seem practical -- for instance, waiting for Hitler to enslave Europe and then finally attack us before declaring war on the Nazis, where the eventual attack sure seems inevitable -- but if you did a pre-emptive strike before then, it's not libertarian, no matter how practical it might seem at the time.

The problem is, if we'd attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor, or Germany before they declared war on us because of our declaration of war on Japan, the country would have been divided and things might have fallen apart during those first few grim years. But because of Pearl Harbor, we were determined to stick it out to the end.

|6.7.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Hey, Mikey--where's that great big "democracy" parade you were ranting about a couple of years ago?

Heh, the funniest thing is that in his whole rant about how leftists and libertarians just don't get how vitally important "democracy promotion" around the world is, he barely mentions the test run of that strategery in Iraq. Except to say that partitioning it might lead to more bloodshed, for which he would no doubt blame those thick-headed folks who distrusted the neocons.

|6.7.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Great idea, val. I fully support your right to create an international army of human rights, with your own money and your own recruits.

However, I'd prefer that the actual US armed forces be used only for defending the US. But good luck to you and your hypothetical champions of global freedom.

Can I still have my base in the US please. Im thinking New York. Or or, we can give people, army vouchers kinda like school vouchers and then they can pick where they want to contribute their taxes. Eh? Eh? What no one else likes my ideas?

Similiarly, val, I don't like the idea of Saddam gassing the kurds, but that doesn't mean I beleive that I or my government can descend upon Iraq and rebuild that state to inocculate it against further human rights abuses. And when I say "can," I'm not talking about justification or price; I'm talking about feasibility.

I agree that the US is in over it's head in Iraq. Like I said, the army just flat out stinks at nation building. And on top of all else we went in there under flase pretenses.

But then I was talking more of abstract concepts, like foreign policy with in libertarian principles. Iraq would be quagmire in execution that policy, Korea and the Balkans would be successes. But examples dont really prove the rule or convice anyone. That why I want to know how isolationism or non-interventionism is derived from libertarian first principles.

|6.7.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Val: "It's not our job to come to the defense of foreign people, period

Ok what if you were to look at it as more of a hobby then a job?

How about if they created armed divisions with in each branch of the military whose stated purpose will be offensive warfare. And then recruits would have a choice if they want to enlist for service in that division. We couldnt start a charitable fund, where the money would be given to the soldierls enlisted in these new division on top of their standard army pay. Then it would our job. Would that be ok?"

If individuals want to voluntarily attack a foreign country, using money that's been voluntarily been donated toward that cause, and the U.S. Armed Forces (or the private defense agencies that will hopefully one day supplant it) have nothing whatsoever to do with encouraging, harboring them, or aiding that attack -- then that's their business, though they shouldn't expect their country to come to their aid when things go bad, and their country might, in the interests of their foreign policy relations, try real hard to stop them from conducting the attack. If the Taliban hadn't been aiding the 9/11 terrorists, then we wouldn't have had cause to attack them, though we certainly would have had cause to bomb the Al-Qaeda camps wherever they were located.

If liberals want to quit trying to egg us on into war in Darfur, and take up arms and fight there themselves (not that those pussies would), fine with me. But don't drag our government into that mess.

|6.7.07 @ 4:23PM|#

I dont think that foreign intervention violates libertarian principles because there are no libertarian principles described for that situation.

Yes, there are. Foreign intervention is going to cost the lives and property of people from the country that's doing the intervening. The government has no business being charitable with the resources of it's citizenry in this case any more than in any other case. Any more than it has any business confiscating the wealth of the citizenry in support of redistribution programs or foreign aid.

|6.7.07 @ 4:24PM|#

Because foreign interventionism violates the principle of non-initiation of force. And, before you say, but the bad guys initiated force against The Children over there, the principle is that until someone attacks you, or the self-defense society that you belong to, any intervention on your part is initiation of force.

That is exactly the part that is unclear to me. You are describing a paleoconservative concept, and I dont see how it become a libertarian principle.

Take law for example as it would apply to individuals with in libertarian principles. If you are walking by and see an old lady beging beaten and robbed. You come up to the robber and violently uprehend him. You have just intiated force against someone who didnt intiate force against you but did initiate force against a stranger. You interfered, did you just violate liberatarian principles?

|6.7.07 @ 4:24PM|#

But then I was talking more of abstract concepts, like foreign policy with in libertarian principles. Iraq would be quagmire in execution that policy, Korea and the Balkans would be successes. But examples dont really prove the rule or convice anyone. That why I want to know how isolationism or non-interventionism is derived from libertarian first principles.

Yeah, I guess your former comments made that clear, so I really was being too repetitive. In any event, I'm neither a strict non-interventionist nor a libertarian purist, so I can't help you with you larger question about the relationship between libertarian first principles and isolationism.

|6.7.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Take law for example as it would apply to individuals with in libertarian principles. If you are walking by and see an old lady beging beaten and robbed. You come up to the robber and violently uprehend him. You have just intiated force against someone who didnt intiate force against you but did initiate force against a stranger. You interfered, did you just violate liberatarian principles?

The difference is, when you are doing so on the old lady's behalf, you are doing so on your own risk and with your own resources.

When the government intervenes, it's risking other people's lives and resources. Which it has no inherent right to be risking.

|6.7.07 @ 5:15PM|#

"That is exactly the part that is unclear to me. You are describing a paleoconservative concept..."

I don't know how "paleoconservative" became a word.

...it sounds like something table pounding war enthusiasts made up to shout down the opposition.

|6.7.07 @ 5:23PM|#

Just ask Ron Paul

|6.7.07 @ 5:33PM|#

I will also note that the primary focus of argument for the war by the Bush administration was - from my perspective - the danger that Saddam presented to the U.S.

Naturally, war is always sold as self-defense, no matter what the true reason. That's because the vast majority of people - libertarian, liberal, and conservative alike - believe that war is nearly always unjustifiable otherwise. The main difference between libertarians and others in this regard is that we're not as easily duped.

|6.7.07 @ 5:34PM|#

Val, re: your comment: "Take law for example as it would apply to individuals with in libertarian principles. If you are walking by and see an old lady beging beaten and robbed. You come up to the robber and violently uprehend him. You have just intiated force against someone who didnt intiate force against you but did initiate force against a stranger. You interfered, did you just violate liberatarian principles?"

A more exact analogy to the foreign interventionism you appear to be advocating would be: "You walk by and see two individuals engaged in a fight over a wallet. You assume that the wallet belongs to the little old lady involved in the fracus, because she looks more feeble, even though from the available evidence anyone with legal training could argue that it is possible that she is trying to rob the big strong-looking guy. To prevent this travesty of justice you imagine, you pull a gun from your purse, point it at several innocent bystanders, and order them to go to the aid of the little old lady -- or else you'll shoot those bystanders. Because, dammit, you don't want to risk your precious okole (Hawaiian for 'arse') intervening in a dangerous situation."

Yep, in that situation you intervened and violated a slew of libertarian principles. And insulting me by saying that I'm a paleoconservative and not a real libertarian because you don't care to engage in the tricky task of refuting my actual points by pointing out how exactly they're not really based on libertarian principles -- yep, that's exactly the sort of principled discussion we'd expect on a website titled Reason.

Gene Berkman|6.7.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Michael Young critiquing libertarians on foreign policy reminds me of welfare statists who claim Libertarians don't care about the poor because we oppose government anti-poverty programs.

Libertarians obviously opposed Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq, but at least some of us saw the pitfalls of invading pre-emptively a country that had not attacked the USA.

Mr Young says of Iraq "If war was the only means to alleviate that suffering, then it really made little sense to oppose war."

Does Mr Young think that the "improvement" of conditions in Iraq is worth the lives of perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians & draftees who have died, the lives of 3,500 American soldiers, and a half trillion dollars and counting?

Wild Pegasus|6.7.07 @ 6:03PM|#

There should be no foreign policy because there should be no state.

- Josh

|6.7.07 @ 6:17PM|#

Michael Young critiquing libertarians on foreign policy reminds me of welfare statists who claim Libertarians don't care about the poor because we oppose government anti-poverty programs.

And just as you wouldn't expect a social worker to have a disinterested opinion about welfare, one shouldn't expect a foreign policy guru to have a disinterested opinion about foreign policy. They have a professional bias towards that which makes them relevant.

|6.7.07 @ 9:19PM|#

Val,
The idea of there being specific branches of the military to fight foreign wars, especially set up to fight genocide, where the applicants knew exactly what they were going in for, strikes me as at least better than what we have now. And of course, I agree, the taxation would have to structured so that the citizenry could opt out of paying for the foreign service branch.

Another alternative: let the other nations build-up and revive or create anew their foreign legions. Young U.S. men and women who believed in these causes could then sign up all on their own to join these foreign legions. Adding to that, U.S. defense companies could spring up that could be paid by foreign countries to supply weaponry, expertise, etc. to liberal democracies. The U.S. military could also sell off some of our extra munitions to liberal democracies.

And/or there could be a separate branch of the U.N. that could expressly be set-up to confront genocide - with citizens of other countries asked to give donations to support it along with other sorts of creative fundraising schemes.

|6.7.07 @ 9:29PM|#

Basic response for Michael Young article:

No, Michael, we have no obligation to overthrow Bashar Assad. End of issue.

|6.7.07 @ 9:43PM|#

Yawn. Another Iraq War booster whose wounded pride still won't allow him to admit that he was wrong, and his opponents right.

It's June 2007, and he's still pretending that the only reason not to sign on to Dick Cheney's Really Big Idea That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong is a lack of concern about human rights and a hostility towards America?

How about, I thought you goobers were going to end up making the streets run with blood, and I was right?

|6.7.07 @ 9:45PM|#

Much of this thread is a good example of why libertarianism isn't taken seriously by more than a couple hundred thousand people in this country. There's this belief that no alternatives (and no discussion can be tolerated by the faithful) lie between the misguided, overly committed U.S. military policy of the past century and a completely self-involved mentality that says, just leave us the fuck alone, genocide/shmenocide. It's as though moral considerations and discussion should stop at 'get yer hand out of my back pocket.'

|6.7.07 @ 9:47PM|#

Hey, Michael Young, Mr. Super-compassion:

Where are all of those columns about Darfur?

Oh, that's right - in magazines written by liberals and leftists, who couldn't possibly care as much about human rights as you do.

|6.7.07 @ 9:53PM|#

What a pathetic column. The only possible way for someone to conclude that nobody except neoconservatives had an explanation for 9/11 is if he steadfastly refused to expose himself to any writings about the issue from liberal, libertarian, realist, or anti-imperialist sources, and just took the other people in his bubble's word for it that no one else had an explanation.

I have nothing but contempt for people who presume to lecture about political ideologies and groups that they've plainly made no effort to educate themselves about.

|6.7.07 @ 11:04PM|#

There's this belief that no alternatives (and no discussion can be tolerated by the faithful) lie between the misguided, overly committed U.S. military policy of the past century and a completely self-involved mentality that says, just leave us the fuck alone, genocide/shmenocide.

All we need is an omniscient leader who will always do the right thing, and your "moderate" approach would be perfect.

|6.8.07 @ 12:55AM|#

joe says: "I have nothing but contempt for people who presume to lecture about political ideologies and groups that they've plainly made no effort to educate themselves about."

Luckily nobody who posts here fits that description.

|6.8.07 @ 2:07AM|#

val,

I am still waiting on some to clearly explain why foreign intervetionism, (ie coming to the defense/aid of a foreign people) violates liberatarian principles.

Have you heard of the ethics of rational self interest? Not that we've followed it consistently, but if there's a guiding principle that has to be it.

If the government of a nation does not respect the individual rights of its citizens, then the government of a nation that does, may rightfully invade any time it is in its self interest to do so.

Invading Iraq could at least have made some kind of sense if we'd intended to suck it dry of oil. But that was not our intent. Nor would such a war be acceptable to the American people in general (though I for one am not opposed in principle to a little Roman pragmatism -- the Romans would not have asked how much it would cost to invade Iraq, they'd have asked how much they were going to make off all that oil).


OTOH, we were/are under no obligation to invade or fight anyone else, when doing so is not in our self interest.



Libertarians have this curious paradox, in that they'll advocate rational self interest in business without hesitation, but they don't have the balls for it when it comes to foreign policy. Nor, sadly, do they have any respect for the profound insights of Machiavelli. Probably because,

"...men are not willing to do all the evil that good requires."

This is one of my many little inconsistencies with libertarianism. I don't shy away from it in foreign policy (or immigration law, thank you) any more than I do economics.

So now are you going to vote for me for president, or what? Of course I probably won't win, and don't really want to be president of anything in the first place. But if you want a philosophical outline for foreign policy, I can make something of a stab at it.

I always liked the Greek ideal of the perfect ruler -- a centaur. Half man, half animal. Because man is as likely to be an animal as not.

There's my two bits fwiw. Now joe can call me a heartless jerk, or worse. But I really didn't pick my namesake on a whim, you know.

|6.8.07 @ 4:10AM|#

Because foreign interventionism violates the principle of non-initiation of force.

Cinderella lived happily ever after, too.

If the US had always followed the non-initiation of force rule, then it would not exist as we know it today. Neither would any other nation we know of today.

Every nation, every civilization in history, has been built on top of a giant grave yard. That's how it works, whether anybody likes it or not.

There is absolutely nothing sacred about national boundaries as they exist today. The hang-up that people seem to have about them bewilders me. How do you think those boundaries were established? Certainly not by "the non-initiation of force".

Of course, there are people who do not shy away from the conclusion that the US maybe shouldn't exist.....but I'm not one of them.


In all seriousness, the principle of rational self interest would do away with a lot of wars. Most of the European Colonial Era, as a case in point.

For just one example, the French take-over of Vietnam would have ended at least several hours before it started, if rational self interest (rather than religious fervor) had prevailed. France in the aggregate never did anything but loose money on Vietnam. Europeans had been never, ever been able to make money of trade in Vietnam, long before the French took over.

And if the French had not colonized Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that Vietnam would ever have become communist. What they would have evolved into I couldn't guess, but it would probably not be communist.

The US would likely have never made money off Iraq either, even if we'd invaded for the sake of oil. But such considerations were not part of the debate. Instead we were told this story about WMDs, and Saddam certainly acted like he was hiding something. Then later we (or I, at least) learned that the US was (likely) supporting attempts to assassinate Saddam, which is probably why he acted like he was hiding. In any case a lot of people besides the US seemed to think Iraq had serious WMDs.

But then there weren't any. And then Iraq evolved into nation building or some such thing. Now we don't even know why we're there....

The WMD story at least had self interest as a motive, except, if we were trying to take Saddam out, then we were also eliminating the possibility of ever finding out if he really had WMDs or not, short of an invasion. So self interest was short circuited.


You can come up with a theory for foreign policy. But figuring out how that philosophy is best put into practice is an entirely different matter. And there's also the problem of weighing the interests of every other player on the board.

Most of the time it's not simple calculus, but one thing I'm sure of. George Clooney's deep seated emotions about Darfur do not constitute a rational reason for the US to send troops there. Neither does the fact that people in Darfur seem to like killing each other.

|6.8.07 @ 4:10AM|#

"Much of this thread is a good example of why libertarianism isn't taken seriously by more than a couple hundred thousand people in this country. There's this belief that no alternatives (and no discussion can be tolerated by the faithful) lie between the misguided, overly committed U.S. military policy of the past century and a completely self-involved mentality that says, just leave us the fuck alone, genocide/shmenocide."

No, libertarianism is not taken seriously because we believe in:

-- legalized drugs
-- legalized gambling and prostitution
-- legalized porn
-- harping on overzealous cops
-- due process/innocence presumption for scumbags
-- minimal if any taxation
-- end of basic government safety nets
-- eradication of most regulation on business
-- no public health and even no public education
-- did I mention legalized drugs?

It cannot be taken seriously to say that libertarians will not ever be taken seriously because, of all reasons, most libertarians advocate a non-aggressively interventionist mind-your-own-business foreign policy.

Why? Because that is one of the few areas where libertarians probably COINCIDE with the default position of the bulk of Americans.

It shows the out-of-touchedness of most a) anti-libertarianism and b) war/neo-libertarianism that they think that being skeptical of war and intervention, especially the idiotic Iraq adventure, is somehow one of libertarianisms' key *non-mainstream* American things. It's one of the few areas where libertarians are with the long-term flow.

Don't mistake the public's general confused scared pissed-offedness after 9/11 and anthrax, with long term American mainstream perceptions on committing endless violence and military tours overseas.

|6.8.07 @ 4:22AM|#

"Every nation, every civilization in history, has been built on top of a giant grave yard. That's how it works, whether anybody likes it or not."

-- So what's your program to change that?

If you say it cant be done then you are contradicting your own sense that rational self-interest can be turned into a policy.

And the real Genghiz Khan did not do it for cash if that is rational self-interest's measure; he did it for fun.

|6.8.07 @ 4:25AM|#

Genghis,

Actually, you seem to have articulated pretty well what appears to have been the reason for invading Iraq, though no one wanted to just come out and say that -- because the American public wouldn't have (didn't?) stand for it. Except instead of the occupiers sucking out all the oil, the occupation just sucked.

You make it sound like there's no difference between the foreign policy view you articulate and the libertarian view of economics, but there is -- libertarians don't advocate letting a rapacious government steal taxes from us for an allegedly benevolant purpose that when looked at in a hard light is just theft from some for the benefit of others. For the same reason we don't generally advocate invading countries they haven't attacked us so we can take their oil. They're both initiations of force. And yes, businesses do attack each other economically all the time, and try to take advantage of consumers to boot, but for pragmatic reasons libertarians don't advocate letting the government intervene in the absence of fraud or theft -- namely, because the government is the most rapacious beast of all, and incompetent to boot, so on both moral and efficiency grounds, it is better to let the marketplace sort it out.

I'm not gonna call you names like "heartless jerk" -- you brought the term up, you know whether it applies to you or not -- but I would suggest that acts of attempted violent appropriation of other nation's resources have a way of consistently turning out badly, and that a rational modern Machiavellian in the context of a Constitutional Republic might advise their prince to rule with a light hand in order to hang onto power.

|6.8.07 @ 4:44AM|#

Genghis,

Re: your comment about whether America would have its current boundaries, or possibly even exist, if we had been oh-so-respectful of the property rights of Aboriginal Indians, or Mexicans, etc.:

Obviously not. But what is done is done. The question is, what do we do now that is in our rational self-interest? Enlarge the boundaries further by invading Canada or Mexico? Common sense would suggest that would turn out badly. Or just maybe, concentrate on building a libertarian society where these boundaries drawn at such expense of bones and treasure are irrelevant, where Mexicans are free to come here and work without being hassled, and where the loss of their human capital to us forces the Mexican government to be more like us to stem the flow? Where the same applies to oppressed people everywhere? Where instead of trying to seize and hold a few more bits of land outside our current borders, we work to develop the potential of the huge swath of territory we already control, and build a nation of a billion or more wealthy, free people of all nationalities fulfilling their potential? Because in the modern era, it isn't land that matters, it's unlocking the human potential that has been carelessly thrown away by every tyrant in history.

Kinda different worldviews we have, no?

Guy Montag|6.8.07 @ 5:54AM|#

Isn't Ron Paul's warmed over Jimmy Carter foreign policy the libertarian foreign policy?

Sure sounds like it here when he dredges up yet another Carter approach.

Politely worded telegrams to all in the world who oppose us!

J. Smith|6.8.07 @ 7:51AM|#

Libertarians aren't taken seriously because you are ruthlessly dogmatic and orthodox. You go after anybody who doesn't toe the ideological line like the Catholic Church going after Galileo. Because I have different ideas about one or two issues my local Libertarian chapter made it quite clear I was not a "real" libertarian and that maybe I didn't belong there. That is not how you build an effective political organization. The party's numbers do not change because anyone who is a "real" libertarian already belongs and no one else is welcome.
Also, looking at the times on some of these post I'm curious if you are all self-employed. If not what is the libertarian position on stealing time and resources from your employer?

|6.8.07 @ 8:55AM|#

There's a difference between "members of the Libertarian Party" (specifically those in your area) and "libertarians" in general. Just sayin'.

|6.8.07 @ 10:50AM|#

Isn't Ron Paul's warmed over Jimmy Carter foreign policy the libertarian foreign policy

Let's see, Ron Paul: maintain a strong defense of the USA. Withdraw from the UN and Nato. Let dictatorships like North Korea sink under the weight of their dictators ineptness. Foght back vigorously if they attack us.

Yes, that sounds so much like Jimmy Carter: Engage in "humanitarian interventionism" when the UN approves. Give dictatorships like NK foreign aid.

Yep, Guy, totally alike.

Frankly, the fact that you cannot make a distinction between the two leaves me puzzled.

You are perfectly entitled to believe that RP's, and the LP's, policy of strong defense of the USA and avoidance of foreign entanglements is wrong.

But for you to confuse it with Jimmy Carter's policy of enthusiastic interventionism just leaves me questioning your comprehension skills.

|6.8.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Incidentally, I believe we (the US) will have to engage in some limited meddling in order to undo some of the consequences of our previous meedling. Hence my ambivalence on the subject of Iraq.

Considering the clusterfuck the Iraq occupation has become, as opposed to the quick, generally competent military conquest, I'm pretty sure it will take more competent actors than the Bushites or for that matter anyone the Dems have to offer.

|6.8.07 @ 1:07PM|#

"Libertarians aren't taken seriously because you are ruthlessly dogmatic and orthodox."

Libertarianism's critics sometimes aren't taken seriously because even in a thread where widely divergent views are all discussed under the heading of Libertarianism, they still accuse us of being ruthlessly dogmatic.

|6.8.07 @ 1:50PM|#

matthew hogan

-- So what's your program to change that?

If you say it cant be done then you are contradicting your own sense that rational self-interest can be turned into a policy.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that being honest about how it works is better than doing it George Clooney's way ("wow, that makes me feel really bad"). Or Clinton's way ("let's see, how do I distract people from my girl adventures so I don't get impeached?"). Rational self interest makes a whole lot more sense to me.

And the real Genghiz Khan did not do it for cash if that is rational self-interest's measure; he did it for fun.

I suppose you could call it fun, but I think you'd have to do a lot of qualifying on the term "fun". Why do empire builders do what they do?

|6.8.07 @ 1:52PM|#

jh

Actually, you seem to have articulated pretty well what appears to have been the reason for invading Iraq

Do you mean my discussion of rational self interest, which (as I said) would not have justified invading Iraq, or do you mean my description of the rambling logic that followed at the end?

You make it sound like there's no difference between the foreign policy view you articulate and the libertarian view of economics, but there is -- libertarians don't advocate letting a rapacious government steal taxes from us for an allegedly benevolant purpose

In fact, I can fully appreciate why libertarians don't think people should be forced to go to war just to take things (like oil). I can even bow to it.

But strictly from a foreign policy standpoint, I see no reason why we should feel restrained from taking a country like Iraq from a malevolent dictator like Saddam.

There are plenty of other valid reasons for not invading places like Iraq. But "respect" for the boundaries of Iraq, and the non-initiation of force idea, are not on my list of reasons for not invading Iraq.

You could write a book on reasons not to invade Iraq but just quick here's two: 1) it typically takes decades and sometimes centuries to pacify a newly conquered region and make it "your own", driving the price tag way up, and 2) in today's world the Chinese and Russians won't want the US to control a major oil source, so they're going to help stir the pot against you as much as possible. The only reason they aren't doing more right now is because we aren't there to take the oil.

So on net balance, our views may not be so very far apart. Though my lack of respect for existing boundaries, and the non-initiation of force principle in foreign affairs, addmitedly bothers a lot of people.

|6.8.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Kinda different worldviews we have, no?

Maybe so after all.

I have no particular respect for a government that can't rule within its own boundaries any better than, say, Mexico.

And I'd let Mexican workers come here only to the extent that it's to our benefit (which is not the same as "let in all the Mexicans who may want to come here").

We don't owe Mexico, or Mexicans, a thing. And there's nothing in principle stopping the Mexican government from "unlocking the potential" of its own people, if they wanted to. They're either too weak (as is the case), or lack the will (also the case).

I'm not sure that annexing more of Mexico would necessarily turn out bad, miltarily. Mexicans aren't like Muslims. And I see absolutely no reason to show any deference to the Mexican government, or their borders.

The cost-benefit matter is the probable deal killer. Annexing new territory is always expensive, even under ideal conditions.

I'm curious as to why so many people have so much "respect" for the boundaries of clearly disfunctional governments. If you listen, particularly to the "UN is Good" crowd, it's like national boundaries were ordained by God His Very Own Self.

|6.8.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Genghis,

You cannot apply the concept of rational self interest at the national level. Sure, Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and a lot of other individuals, politicians, organizations, and businesses thought that it was in their interest for taxpayers to pay for U.S. fighters to conquer Iraq, but a great many others believed (quite rationally, I might add) that it was NOT in their interest (not to mention morally depraved).

|6.8.07 @ 2:11PM|#

btw, if we elevated altruism, or "unlocking human potential", to the same level of importance as rational self interest (in foreign policy), isn't Mexico better off if we conquer it and and impose US rule on it?

I argue that in the realm of foreign policy, the combination of rational self interest (at the national level) combined with the American people's desire to stay out of wars, is about all you need for guiding rules.

The US public isn't likely to stand for invading Iraq, just for the sake of oil, even though rational self interest doesn't necessarily (but may) prohibit such an act.

What else do you need? Consistently following these two guide lines would eliminate most of the wars in our history.

|6.8.07 @ 2:13PM|#

You cannot apply the concept of rational self interest at the national level.

I think that actually you can, but it's admittedly difficult to implement in practice. Dick Cheney is not "the United States". Just like, a couple of rubber companies did not represent "the interests of France at large" in Vietnam.

But there's no policy that's easy to implement in practice, when you get down to it.