friends say non-intervention is possible

[jtyr8nt93]

Quick question? My libertarian teacher recently asked us a question to ponder over intervention status and if it is possible in a global world?

My friends are saying things like it is not possible to have an isolationist foreign policy when economies rely on each other for growth and how it is not possible in a world where the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons exist? Comments on what these friends are thinking and how to respond when we come back?

[AZKing]

Isolationism isn't necessarily a good idea -- but that's not really what a non interventionist foreign policy entails.

We should trade with everyone, be friends and be diplomatic. However, it is not wise to threaten everyone with military intervention or preemptive strikes or prop up dictators. That incites hatred amongst people who would likely be allies otherwise.

[Brett85]

There aren't many non interventionists who believe that we should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Most of us still believe that we should have free trade and diplomacy with other countries. We aren't opposed to having the United States participate in the global economy. We're simply opposed to intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, because it costs too much money and takes away from our defenses here at home.

[Southron]

I bet we could have advanced nuclear defense for the cost of all our intervention.

[Ninja Homer]

As seen on facebook: "Isolationism is locking yourself in your house and never going outside; non-interventionism is going out, buying and selling, and being friendly to the neighbors but not starting fights with them. Interventionism is noticing your neighbor bought a gun and killing his entire family before he starts something."

[doodle]

Quick question? My libertarian teacher recently asked us a question to ponder over intervention status and if it is possible in a global world?

My friends are saying things like it is not possible to have an isolationist foreign policy when economies rely on each other for growth and how it is not possible in a world where the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons exist? Comments on what these friends are thinking and how to respond when we come back?

If you have looked at how our children and gf's/wives are being groped at airports by Obama administration workers, you would understand why islolationsism is getting hot as a public choice.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283306-The-aversions-towards-Israel&p=3158752&viewfull=1#post3158752

[Teaser Rate]

Strict non-intervention is hard to defend and probably counter-productive to our nation's interests in the long run; IMO the case libertarians should make is for limited intervention. Get involved when it serves our interests and stay out when it doesn't.

[Brett85]

Strict non-intervention is hard to defend and probably counter-productive to our nation's interests in the long run; IMO the case libertarians should make is for limited intervention. Get involved when it serves our interests and stay out when it doesn't.

How about getting involved when our national security is actually at stake? "Interests" is a vague term that can mean anything.

[doodle]

Strict non-intervention is hard to defend and probably counter-productive to our nation's interests in the long run; IMO the case libertarians should make is for limited intervention. Get involved when it serves our interests and stay out when it doesn't.

Maybe, but it's much easier to defend compared to strict interventiosnism.

Until we we can agree on a happy medium, militant interventionism should be villified in all its glorious blowbacks.

[specsaregood]

Don't take it personally; we all have a few stupid friends.

[Teaser Rate]

How about getting involved when our national security is actually at stake? "Interests" is a vague term that can mean anything.

The problem with the national security argument is that it too, can be vague enough to mean anything. Going after Saddam was justified as an act of national security by some in 2003.

By national interests, I mean clear, concise goals with defined objectives and exit strategies. I think sending in US troops from Asia to help Japan was perfectly justified.

[Teaser Rate]

Maybe, but it's much easier to defend compared to strict interventiosnism.

Until we we can agree on a happy medium, militant interventionism should be villified in all its glorious blowbacks.

I see it as the difference between defending limited government and no government.

Even if you're an anarcho-capitalist at heart, it's easier to argue for a smaller state than have to answer 100 theoretical questions about an stateless society.

If the same way, it's easier to argue for limited intervention and not have to answer theoretical questions about when we should have gotten involved in WWII.

[Brett85]

By national interests, I mean clear, concise goals with defined objectives and exit strategies. I think sending in US troops from Asia to help Japan was perfectly justified.

I don't have a problem with using our troops to help in Japan since they're already over there. We've had troops stationed in Japan for a long time, and since they're already there they might as well do something constructive. But there's no reason why we should still have troops in Japan, Germany, Kosovo, England, and the hundreds of other countries that we still have troops in. We should concentrate on defending our own country rather than policing the world.

[mczerone]

I see it as the difference between defending limited government and no government.

Even if you're an anarcho-capitalist at heart, it's easier to argue for a smaller state than have to answer 100 theoretical questions about an stateless society.

If the same way, it's easier to argue for limited intervention and not have to answer theoretical questions about when we should have gotten involved in WWII.

OTOH, you'll inevitably run across the "argument" that minimal govt will start one on the slippery slope to anarchism. So you either need to make a well-justified line as to what govt services must be provided, or to justify complete anarchy.

In the case of foreign "interventions", I'd simply turn the argument around, and ask the friends why it is economically beneficial or moral to mandate some contribution from each member of a political citizenry to protect any industry, trade, or stability. Point out that if it is economical to have security patrol over-land- or sea-trade routes, the industries using those routes are in the best position to gain/lose by implementing some solution. And if it's beneficial to the American oil consumer to prevent extreme nationalism from disrupting the supply of oil, then the American consumer can demand the producers ensure that their suppliers are playing nicely - up to the point the American consumer is willing to pay for such assurances. At some point the gas buyer is going to say "It's not worth another cent/gallon to control OPEC's style, I'll just buy from other production sources or reduce my need for oil."

Govt can't know those decisions of each individual, nor can it even come close to guessing how those decisions compare "in aggregate" to the expenditures on foreign policies. The govt's decisions are based on the personal motivations of the politicians and bureaucrats, which only align with true consumer sentiment less often than one of those proverbial blind squirrels finds a nut. The only way to know is to "play market", and what better way to let the market work than for the govt to do nothing?

[Teaser Rate]

OTOH, you'll inevitably run across the "argument" that minimal govt will start one on the slippery slope to anarchism. So you either need to make a well-justified line as to what govt services must be provided, or to justify complete anarchy.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy and should be called out as such. Or else anyone who supports any level of taxation could be accused of supporting a 100% level of taxation.


In the case of foreign "interventions", I'd simply turn the argument around, and ask the friends why it is economically beneficial or moral to mandate some contribution from each member of a political citizenry to protect any industry, trade, or stability. Point out that if it is economical to have security patrol over-land- or sea-trade routes, the industries using those routes are in the best position to gain/lose by implementing some solution. And if it's beneficial to the American oil consumer to prevent extreme nationalism from disrupting the supply of oil, then the American consumer can demand the producers ensure that their suppliers are playing nicely - up to the point the American consumer is willing to pay for such assurances. At some point the gas buyer is going to say "It's not worth another cent/gallon to control OPEC's style, I'll just buy from other production sources or reduce my need for oil."

Govt can't know those decisions of each individual, nor can it even come close to guessing how those decisions compare "in aggregate" to the expenditures on foreign policies. The govt's decisions are based on the personal motivations of the politicians and bureaucrats, which only align with true consumer sentiment less often than one of those proverbial blind squirrels finds a nut. The only way to know is to "play market", and what better way to let the market work than for the govt to do nothing?

Because things do not happen in a vacuum and a small problem which might have been resolved by limited intervention might grow into a much larger problem if not addressed. A perfect example of this is the US leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.

[Vessol]

Murder is immoral and wrong unless it is in immediate self-defense.

It doesn't matter if you have a fancy badge or a uniform on.

[Teaser Rate]

Murder is immoral and wrong unless it is in immediate self-defense.

It doesn't matter if you have a fancy badge or a uniform on.

So the allied soldiers who attacked the German troops defending the concentration camps in WWII were committing murder ?

[mczerone]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy and should be called out as such. Or else anyone who supports any level of taxation could be accused of supporting a 100% level of taxation.



Because things do not happen in a vacuum and a small problem which might have been resolved by limited intervention might grow into a much larger problem if not addressed. A perfect example of this is the US leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.

Okay, that's all well and good, but by what means must a small problem be taken care of? If you see a small international "problem" that may later be a large problem, by all means use your own resources to take care of the problem. But you didn't answer my question as to why I must also pay for your resolution to your supposed problem.

Again, if it is in my interest to fix this problem, you can appeal to me in rational terms to gain my support. But if I don't see something as a problem, or disagree with the means you choose to fix an acknowledged problem, why should my material support be forced from me? This is the question I asked, and recommended the OP to ask of his friends.

And I'm afraid I don't know enough about Afghanistan in the post-Soviet years to get what you might mean as to why I should be forced to support the federal military looking after Afghani resources.

[Teaser Rate]

Okay, that's all well and good, but by what means must a small problem be taken care of? If you see a small international "problem" that may later be a large problem, by all means use your own resources to take care of the problem. But you didn't answer my question as to why I must also pay for your resolution to your supposed problem.

Again, if it is in my interest to fix this problem, you can appeal to me in rational terms to gain my support. But if I don't see something as a problem, or disagree with the means you choose to fix an acknowledged problem, why should my material support be forced from me? This is the question I asked, and recommended the OP to ask of his friends.

And I'm afraid I don't know enough about Afghanistan in the post-Soviet years to get what you might mean as to why I should be forced to support the federal military looking after Afghani resources.

Now you’re making the argument from anarchy which doesn’t really work either.

Why should you be forced to support government programs? Because things do not happen in a vacuum; as long as you live in society, you will use government services one way or another, and as such, must pay for them via taxation.

Why should you be forced to pay for the military? Because you cannot stop benefit from its protection unless you leave society, ergo, as long as you remain here, you must pay your dues.

Anarcho-capitalists see only one type of coercion; the coercion of society. What they fail to consider is that the alternative to that is the coercion of nature. Yes it's coercive for the state to make you pay taxes for services, however there is also a lot of coercion in being left alone against uncontrollable forces such as disease, bad luck or foreign invasion.

[low preference guy]

Now you’re making the argument from anarchy which doesn’t really work either.

Why should you be forced to support government programs? Because things do not happen in a vacuum; as long as you live in society, you will use government services one way or another, and as such, must pay for them via taxation.

Why should you be forced to pay for the military? Because you cannot stop benefit from its protection unless you leave society, ergo, as long as you remain here, you must pay your dues.

Anarcho-capitalists see only one type of coercion; the coercion of society. What they fail to consider is that the alternative to that is the coercion of nature. Yes it's coercive for the state to make you pay taxes for services, however there is also a lot of coercion in being left alone against uncontrollable forces such as disease, bad luck or foreign invasion.

Why should you pay for universal health care? Because you'll go to the doctor some day!

[Ninja Homer]

Now you’re making the argument from anarchy which doesn’t really work either.

Why should you be forced to support government programs? Because things do not happen in a vacuum; as long as you live in society, you will use government services one way or another, and as such, must pay for them via taxation.

Why should you be forced to pay for the military? Because you cannot stop benefit from its protection unless you leave society, ergo, as long as you remain here, you must pay your dues.

Anarcho-capitalists see only one type of coercion; the coercion of society. What they fail to consider is that the alternative to that is the coercion of nature. Yes it's coercive for the state to make you pay taxes for services, however there is also a lot of coercion in being left alone against uncontrollable forces such as disease, bad luck or foreign invasion.

http://sbftech.com/Smileys/default/bs.gif This country had government services and a military long before it had a federal income tax. Figure that one out.