Ask a Libertarian: "What's the right take on foreign policy?"

Welcome to Ask a Libertarian with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America.

Go to http://declaration2011.com to purchase, read reviews, find event dates, and more.

On June 15, 2011 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. In this episode, they answer the question:

What's the libertarian position on foreign policy?

For the complete series, go to http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/10/ask-a-libertarian and Reason.tv's YouTube Channel at http://youtube.com/reasontv

Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, with help from Katie Hooks, Kyle Blaine and Jack Gillespie.

Comments

[Spiny Norman]

An organized face-punching process!

I can get behind that.

[Hugh Akston]

We'll call it the Ezra Klein doctrine.

[SugarFree]

That's not what he wants to use his fist for.

[Fist of Etiquette]

No military intervention short of a response to the Hun bombing Pearl Harbor? Tell it to Congress.

[Episiarch]

Nuking the moon?

[Hugh Akston]

We have the technology, the time is now, science can wait no longer, children are our future.

[omg]

United States participation in WW2 was absolutely called for

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

Why did we have to stick our grubby fingers in Europe's pudding? Why did we taunt Imperial Japan into attacking us? We did it because some cripple thought it was a good idea. And our involvement in that war was probably #2 on American freedom-destroying wars, after WW1.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Japan bombed us and Nazi Germany declared war on us. Are you saying that under libertarian politics, a sovereign nation that withholds its resources (which was basically what FDR did to the Japs) has it coming? Are "libertarian" nations obligated to change their policies regarding use and trade of their resources to avoid war?

Maybe FDR was being provocative, but by no means does that mean that Japan was obligated to take the bait. Hell, we did more to antagonize Nazi Germany than we did to antagonize Japan. Libertarians would squeal if we attacked another country on the basis of that country withholding oil -- how does that situation change when a nation not called the USA does the same damned thing?

[omg]

Of course Japan was "wrong" to attack us, but we were also "wrong" to lead an international embargo. Also, that oil does not belong to the US government, it belongs to whoever extracted it. They should be able to sell to whoever they wish.

[Episiarch]

Uh, we were fucking with Japan pretty hard, dude. Of course we had to respond to their attack, but maybe we shouldn't have been doing embargoes in the first place?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Japan was fucking our allies even worse by invading just about every European colony or affiliate in Asia. It's not like our embargo came out of nowhere.

Do I agree that international embargoes are a good thing? Nope. But in the broad scheme of things, they're sure as hell not bad enough to make WWII our most "freedom destroying" war next to WWI. It's arguable that, given the dismantling of parts of the New Deal directly after the war, and the destruction of two pretty loathsome regimes, it was more freedom-enhancing than most of our other wars (say, the Spanish-American war).

[Episiarch]

It was freedom-destroying for us, dude. For us. Internment camps. The Pentagon. Massive military conscription. Food and resource rationing. And all the shit that came after, like a military-industrial complex, the CIA, etc.

I'm glad that others were liberated, I really am, but was that our responsibility? And as for our "allies", they should be able to take care of their own problems.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Gotcha. In that case, I agree but don't really see how we could have avoided the war itself. Japan was going to come into conflict with us at some point, and that would have been a bare-knuckle fight whenever it happened. The jury's out on whether we could have avoided war with Germany.

(I'll also note that there's nothing that said that we had to do something as stupid and evil as the Japanese Internment... we somehow avoided it with Teh Moozlims this time around.)

[omg]

We could have avoided a war with Germany by not showing up in Europe. Hitler didn't come to us, we went to him after he declared war.

I don't think it was inevitable that Japan would attack us. Who's to say what would have happened if we had not led the embargo?

As for the Japanese Internment...it was most likely unnecessary, but it happened. And the draft happened. And the massive, crippling debt happened. And many other freedom-destroying things.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

He could have attacked our shipping lanes, blown our ships out of the water, helped out with grabbing our overseas possessions -- you know, stuff that doesn't require launching a continental invasion. Besides, Germany was pretty into the whole long-range missile stuff -- who knows when they would have figured out enough to build rockets to blow chunks out of NYC?

Again, the jury's still out about whether Germany would have done any of those things, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[Cytotoxic]

@omg: you're seriously suggesting that, if a nation declares war on America, America should 'not go after them'?

[Tonio]

And don't forget the Lend-Lease program where we basically loaned Britain all the tanks, planes and jeeps they could use without requiring up-front payments.

However, if Britain had fallen it's quite possible that Hitler would have tried to invade North America. This is where non-initiation falls flat - foreseeable outcomes and all that.

[omg]

I think the big H was plenty occupied with another mustachioed pal to the east to worry his pretty little head about a completely unsustainable cross-atlantic invasion party.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Just like he was too busy with Stalin to bother with invading France, the Balkans, North Africa, Denmark, Norway etc. Yep, Hitler really focused mono-maniacally on Stalin and the east.

[Episiarch]

The only way Mr. Schicklgruber was going to get at us across the Atlantic was with super long range bombers or missiles. He certainly couldn't invade; invading the US is now (and was then) basically a strategic impossibility. Once he had Europe, he would have had to chill out.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Germany would have had to completely take out Russia & then make a massive naval build up. Aircraft carriers, destroyers, subs, etc. In order for Germany to have any chance of successfully invading America. In the meantime America would have plenty of time to prepare.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

That's true -- still doesn't make paleo bullshit about Hitler focusing exclusively on Stalin after '41 even close to being true.

[omg]

All of the countries you mention seem suspiciously close to Germany and suspiciously not across the entire Atlantic Ocean. Actually, I think all of the invasions that you mentioned happened before Operation Barbarossa. So Germany wasn't even at war with the USSR at the time.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I'm pretty sure the Germans were still in N Africa well after Operation Barbarossa, and continuing to commit resources to the region.

Paleo bullshit about Nazi Germany limiting itself to a historical German sphere of influence is still bullshit.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Also, German invasion of Greece came relatively late into the war (IIRC, after Operation Barbarossa).

[omg]

I'm pretty sure the Germans were still in N Africa well after Operation Barbarossa, and continuing to commit resources to the region.

I think "continuing to commit resources" to a region a few hundred miles away from Germany is a bit different than launching an invasion thousands of miles away while your forces are getting rolled up like the top of a sardine can to your east.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

When did I say Hitler would have invaded? I said the jury was still out on whether Germany would have engaged hostilities (which includes a lot more and a lot less than full scale invasion), and that Nazi Germany was in no way focused exclusively on Russia in terms of its interests or military commitments in WWII, as tends to be alleged by paleos (apologies if you aren't endorsing their views).

[omg]

You said "attacked", which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) as "invaded". I just don't really see what they could have done to us from all the way across the Atlantic. They had rockets that could hit London from across the Channel, but I think it would be a tall order for them to hit New York with rockets. They could target shipping, but if the shipping was for war supplies headed to Britain that would probably be fair game (at least according to the "rules"), wouldn't it?

I don't think they would have attacked civilian shipping. Hell, in world war I America and Britain ran a ship whose entire purpose was to be full of civilians when it got sunk to stir up anti-German sentiment. And it did. I don't think Germany would have made that mistake twice.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

That had more to do with Germany than with Japan.

[AlmightyJB]

Why do we need to have a foreign policy at all.

[Hugh Akston]

For the same reason we need to have a trade policy or a drug policy or an internet policy: because other countries are real things and the US will bump up against them from time to time.

[CE]

Google Ron Paul.

[Stephanie White]

How did 'foreign policy' come to be equated solely with military action? That's where these guys started and stopped the discussion. They said that libertarianism promotes non-coercion, but in the same breath say that engagement should happen, first and foremost, economically. I'd argue that's where MOST coercion plays out (e.g. structural adjustment to fit a model of global economic development predicated on corporate capitalism). Are policies designed to promote 'free trade' (which isn't really free) coercion, or just good business? I suppose it depends on where you sit.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Two parties engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction cannot be construed as coercion.

[Stephanie White]

Agreed. But how does that comment address my point?

[Hugh Akston]

Free trade as it is commonly understood to mean trade across borders without government intervention is by definition not coercive.

[Stephanie White]

Who defines the rules by which "free trade" ***cough Utopian ideal*** is carried out? There are always rules by which players must abide, no? Or are you equating free trade across borders with, for example, my local farmer and I negotiating an acceptable price at my local farmer's market (which also, btw, could have coercive elements associated with it)? And where does free trade happen without government intervention, unless, of course, you are talking about drug trade or other illicit informal activity?

The idea that there could be free trade without coercion is laughable. That doesn't mean I'm against global trade, but let's not pretend that an absence of coercion is possible.

[Stephanie White]

Let me just say here that government, in my estimation, creates and perpetrates coercive economic relationships. I'm not rooting for government intervention here.

[Hugh Akston]

my local farmer and I negotiating an acceptable price at my local farmer's market (which also, btw, could have coercive elements associated with it)

O_O

[Stephanie White]

O_O

Okay...well...maybe not likely. But possible! 😉

[steve]

Is is just me or does it seem like they are taking a shot after each question?

[Cytotoxic]

Unfortunately, most of the libertarian "answer" to FP is to worship the Cargo Cult of Noninterventionism. Thinking not required. Or even wanted.

[tarran]

Collectivists are so cute when they're reduced to accusing their opponents of superstition for not sacrificing lifes and treasure for the collectivists' plans.