Neo-Conservatism, Interventionism, Foreign Aggression, Foreign Aid

[John Taylor]

After a previous attempt, I have created this poll, open to all readers and browsers here at Liberty Forest. Easy grazing guys!

[John Taylor]

Bump.

[someperson]

Too many of the responses that I'd like to select have caveats that break them, so I'll have to pass on this poll. For example, as far as I'm concerned, non-interventionism, with respect to the state, involves neutrality, not friendship (implying allied status) with everyone. There are several other "deal-breakers."

[Agorism]

The prohibition by law of private citizens using their resources to support foreign countries?


I forgot to add that we already have this. Governments and organizations not supported by interest groups and think tanks who lobby congress are classified as "terrorist groups."

If you give money or say you support them, well that means you're a terrorist.

This is another question that needs rephrasing although I'm not sure how.

Also the government is now engaging in international bank agreements to monitor all citizens to make sure they do not donate to unapproved groups or unapproved foreign governments.

[Philhelm]

I had voted for:

Ending the War in Afghanistan?
The use of U.S. force for any purpose other than the literal defense of the U.S.?
The free exchange of goods and services with all, provided they are not at war with the U.S.?
Support the cessation of all foreign aid to all countries?
Support the constitutional mandate of defense, not of aggression abroad?
Non-interventionism? (friends with everyone, defenders of ourselves alone)
the reduction of the U.S. military to an officer corps and special forces?
The prohibition by law of private citizens using their resources to support foreign countries?

A couple of them were conditional though. While I am generally opposed to pre-emptive warfare and entanglement in foreign alliances, I can imagine some scenarios in which it would be wise to form a temporary coalition against a conquering power (Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc.).

As far as making it illegal for a citizen to use resources to support a foreign nation, that is also conditional. Are we talking about foreign aid, supporting the government, treason? People should do as they wish with their money, but I do believe that there can be some scenarios in which it would be treasonous.

[Agorism]

I have a problem with people being able to support certain governments abroad while unapproved governments are classified as terrorists groups and will get you a long long jail sentence based on the very liberal use of "anti-terror" laws.

Either get rid all all anti-terror laws or ban citizens from supporting any foreign government or groups (I don't support this but it would be fair)

Below "The prohibition by law of private citizens using their resources to support foreign countries?

Consider adding

"Ending the The prohibition by law of private citizens using their resources to support unapproved foreign countries or groups that are classified as "terrorist"?

[Philhelm]

I think it would also be important to define what supporting a foreign nation would be.

[Agorism]

Taylor thought that the Flotilla nonviolent protesters were terrorists as well as believing that certain governments in the middle east deserve to be classified as "terrorist" so that the U.S. government can prosecute citizens who choose to donate to them so he's a hypocrite when he advocates allowing U.S. citizens to privately fund only think-tank-approved and lobbyist-approved middle eastern countries and groups. He wants to the terms of the debate to be set, that way the opposition can never win a debate.

YouTube - Reagan's Nashua Moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE)

[Sentient Void]

Very good and well-thought-out poll!