View Full Version : Can't 100% back libertarianism
I've always believed, and even took an oath, that the constitution and the freedoms it provides is paramount. That's part of the reason I chose a few years ago to become a conservative libertarian, as I believe in states rights, freedom, and liberty above all else in matters of politics. I like to think it's plainly obvious that I uphold the 2nd Amendment as perhaps the most important in the bill of rights (because it does protect the other amendments from tyranny). I also believe that the war on drugs is a pointless waste of money, man power, and resources, and needs to end, but can offer little in the way of solutions. The libertarian party seems to be right on track with all of this.
However... there is a major disagreement I have with their views and I think it's a pretty important one. As a veteran, I've seen first hand the results of tyranny and dominance in other lands forced upon weaker people by an oppressive government. I've learned in my extensive love for history about the atrocities in Rwanda, Germany, Cambodia, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, and other places where oppressive and tyrannical governments have stripped people of their freedom and very lives. I cannot fully back the libertarian party on it's foreign policy. This was a major issue I had with Clinton and his administration with their refusal to get involved with the genocide in Rwanda. And now it's really hit a nerve with me after hearing about what Ron Paul said in 2009. When asked if he were president in 1942, and he knew about the holocaust, but the Nazis posed no threat to the U.S., would he intervene simply on the moral grounds to save the Jews he replied: “No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that."
Seriously? I'm not asking that America be the world police, but when you have the power to stop evil and you don't, then you are just as evil. Or in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it."
I consider myself a libertarian, not necessarily a Libertarian. While I agree with many things the Libertarian party espouses, I believe that it is unspeakably naive to expect that a completely isolationist foreign policy can be realistically maintained in a rapidly globalizing economy. Somehow we need to ensure the security of our interests worldwide without our military becoming the world's police force or tools of the megacorporations that owe no allegiance to the USA.
HoneyBadger
08-22-2012, 11:07
I consider myself a libertarian, not necessarily a Libertarian. While I agree with many things the Libertarian party espouses, I believe that it is unspeakably naive to expect that a completely isolationist foreign policy can be realistically maintained in a rapidly globalizing economy. Somehow we need to ensure the security of our interests worldwide without our military becoming the world's police force or tools of the megacorporations that owe no allegiance to the USA.
When have Libertarians ever espoused total isolationism? Libertarianism is very much about free trade and limited regulation. Basically, Libertarians would rather trade with a country like China than waste resources being enemies.
The thing that I give Ron Paul the most credit for is that he sticks to his principles. My interpretation: Principally, he is saying that the US government should not have used it's resources and its people to stop the holocaust because that is not the government's job. However, if people want to stop the holocaust, they SHOULD get involved because as a moral and humane society, every human has the moral responsibility to stop the holocaust.
I don't think it is any one state's responsibility to intervene to stop the evils of another state. A conglomerate such as NATO or the UN might be different, but then again... the UN hasn't ever fulfilled its purpose... [Shake]
I'm sure the Libertarian party is in tears over you not being 100% on board with them Ronin.
There is a slight misunderstanding here. For a true Libertarian it would be wrong to ask anyone else to fight on your behalf. That said, there would be no reason to help you fight your own fight -- but I could *choose* to if I wanted.
If people *chose* to do something about 'evils' someplace else then they could do whatever they wanted to do about it. When enough people choose to do something big things can happen. People who oppose the choice aren't directly affected since their monies, time, etc. aren't being used to fund/support something they don't agree with.
In truth there is nothing isolationist about it, from a government sense - but individuals could choose to be isolationist if they wanted to be.
When have Libertarians ever espoused total isolationism? Libertarianism is very much about free trade and limited regulation. Basically, Libertarians would rather trade with a country like China than waste resources being enemies.
The thing that I give Ron Paul the most credit for is that he sticks to his principles. My interpretation: Principally, he is saying that the US government should not have used it's resources and its people to stop the holocaust because that is not the government's job. However, if people want to stop the holocaust, they SHOULD get involved because as a moral and humane society, every human has the moral responsibility to stop the holocaust.
I don't think it is any one state's responsibility to intervene to stop the evils of another state. A conglomerate such as NATO or the UN might be different, but then again... the UN hasn't ever fulfilled its purpose... [Shake]
My view is that there are definitely instances in which we should involve ourselves in foreign affairs to support our interests. Failing to act early in some situations allows problems to develop momentum and consequently require far greater resources to stop at a later date. As I said before, balancing these needs versus becoming the world's cop is the issue. Since WW II, we have definitely erred on the side of being a tool for NATO and the UN, becoming a target for the 3rd world to hate in the process.
My view is that there are definitely instances in which we should involve ourselves in foreign affairs to support our interests.
<snip>
Since WW II, we have definitely erred on the side of being a tool for NATO and the UN, becoming a target for the 3rd world to hate in the process.
Its all about your definition of "we". If you mean people that don't agree with you - then you depart from true Libertarianism. If by "we" you mean a grouping of people that all agree and choose to get involved, then you are towing the line.
I will say this in terms of isolationism and what you guys have pointed out. Remember that guy Kony? People wanted to do something about it, but it wasn't like Aegis, Blackwater, Triple Canopy and the like were volunteering to go over there and do something. The only people capable of intervention when it comes to atrocities against people (like Germany in the 30's and 40's, or how about even Rwanda?) are military and PMCs... I for one don't have the capability to gather up some friends, some guns, and go over to some foreign soil and put an end to that. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
In cases like that, I would gladly support our government (president + Congress) for putting a stop that crap. Not many know that Saddam Insane used chemical weapons against his own people, killing an estimated 200,000+. But, if we have isolationist policies then we won't get involved, even if we have the power to.
Goodburbon
08-22-2012, 15:02
I will say this in terms of isolationism and what you guys have pointed out. Remember that guy Kony? People wanted to do something about it, but it wasn't like Aegis, Blackwater, Triple Canopy and the like were volunteering to go over there and do something. The only people capable of intervention when it comes to atrocities against people (like Germany in the 30's and 40's, or how about even Rwanda?) are military and PMCs... I for one don't have the capability to gather up some friends, some guns, and go over to some foreign soil and put an end to that. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
In cases like that, I would gladly support our government (president + Congress) for putting a stop that crap. Not many know that Saddam Insane used chemical weapons against his own people, killing an estimated 200,000+. But, if we have isolationist policies then we won't get involved, even if we have the power to.
That is why it is up to congress (the representatives of the people) to declare war.
NOT up to a single executive.
That is why it is up to congress (the representatives of the people) to declare war.
NOT up to a single executive.
Agree 100% on that one! [Beer]
hghclsswhitetrsh
08-22-2012, 16:24
I dunno about you guys, but personally I blame then unions.
Its all about your definition of "we". If you mean people that don't agree with you - then you depart from true Libertarianism. If by "we" you mean a grouping of people that all agree and choose to get involved, then you are towing the line.
By "we" I am referring to the political leadership that "we, the people" have delegated the authority to manage the affairs of this country.
HoneyBadger
08-22-2012, 16:57
That is why it is up to congress (the representatives of the people) to declare war.
NOT up to a single executive.
Agree 100% on that one! [Beer]
+1 [Beer]
On the isolationism.....
Libertarianism is not isolationism. North Koreans are Isolationists. If memory serves me right I believe they call it "la Junta" but I could be wrong.
As far as protecting other people in far off lands from their own government, I think we would do a much better job of spreading freedom by being an example of it, rather then spreading freedom through the end of a barrel.
I like what Ron Paul said about wars. (Paraphrasing) "If there was an iminent threat I would ask congress to declare war and if approved, it would be ON! I would fight it to win it and then come home."
Remember that guy Kony? People wanted to do something about it, but it wasn't like Aegis, Blackwater, Triple Canopy and the like were volunteering to go over there and do something.
And the U.S. government should take a lesson from those companies: they aren't bankrupt and very likely have a balanced budget they live within.
Teufelhund
08-24-2012, 07:14
Read a short article (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/24/GOP-Backs-Congress-War-Powers-Ron-Paul-Pleased) this morning regarding the influence Paul and his supporters have had over the GOP policy this cycle (as was Paul's stated goal from the beginning). The Libertarian platform is not purely isolationist; this sums it up well:
“Nation-building is a failed policy of the Democrats and we Republicans need to go back to the humble foreign policy of George Bush before 9/11,” Ford said. “9/11 pushed us into a situation where we had to do some things, but we need to go back to not creating democracies overseas that creates Islamic regimes and just focus on the goal of getting our enemies and bringing our troops home safely and as soon as possible.”
Regarding the War Powers part of the article: why do some of our more liberty-friendly legislators have to waste time and effort to reiterate something so clearly stated in the Constitution? The fact that only Congress may declare war (or any other statement in the Constitution) is not negotiable. . . although it seems the current administration thinks it is. Why are we not holding them accountable?
How does anyone propose to hold them accountable?
Remember you'll need at least 51% of the electorate in agreement with you on the issue. I said 51% because the left follows the mantra "the ends justify the means".
Teufelhund
08-24-2012, 16:06
How does anyone propose to hold them accountable?
Remember you'll need at least 51% of the electorate in agreement with you on the issue. I said 51% because the left follows the mantra "the ends justify the means".
Such is the root of the problem. Corruption cannot be solved if we must depend on the corrupt to solve it. I'm probably on too many watch lists already to start publicly proposing my versions of a solution.
jhood001
08-24-2012, 16:23
First off, congratulations and good on you for deciding that you don't follow something 100%, Ronin.
Now with that out of the way-
Is it up to Congress to declare war or not? Is what Dr. Paul even said about the Nazi's even relevant when you consider that it is his utmost belief that war powers are only reserved for Congress? In other words, it doesn't matter WHAT he thinks he would do if he were president. If Congress brings it up and decides that we go to Nazi Germany, we go. The same with Rwanda, right? And yet you have major issue with Clinton and his administration for not doing what isn't within its power to do?
Going further, if you don't believe in being the world police, just where do YOU draw the line? Rwanda yes, Darfur no? Do you want to go help liberate the Iranians from their nut-job regime? How about the North Koreans? There is definitely evil in both of those places. Should we all start wearing braclets with 'What Would Ronin Do' on them?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you post, or are you just sitting at your desk daydreaming all day long and thinking of ways that you can come on here and get an 'atta boy from a predominantly conservative group of people? Seriously! Good job dropping Slick Willies name in a manner that did nothing to support your alleged ALMOST 100% Libertarian beliefs. Us conservatives really hate us some Bill Clinton. Hell, I don't even remember why you mentioned him anymore! I just heard the name and got mad as hell and wanted to high-five you!
Your posts appear to increasingly be for the sole purpose of getting some applause... but not without exception. Your museum post was quite nice and I enjoyed reading it. [Beer]
Lastly, Americans go over on their own time and dime and fight for causes quite often. Sometimes with weapons and sometimes not. They're just probably doing it on terms and with risks that you aren't comfortable enough with.
I've always believed, and even took an oath, that the constitution and the freedoms it provides is paramount. That's part of the reason I chose a few years ago to become a conservative libertarian, as I believe in states rights, freedom, and liberty above all else in matters of politics. I like to think it's plainly obvious that I uphold the 2nd Amendment as perhaps the most important in the bill of rights (because it does protect the other amendments from tyranny). I also believe that the war on drugs is a pointless waste of money, man power, and resources, and needs to end, but can offer little in the way of solutions. The libertarian party seems to be right on track with all of this.
However... there is a major disagreement I have with their views and I think it's a pretty important one. As a veteran, I've seen first hand the results of tyranny and dominance in other lands forced upon weaker people by an oppressive government. I've learned in my extensive love for history about the atrocities in Rwanda, Germany, Cambodia, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, and other places where oppressive and tyrannical governments have stripped people of their freedom and very lives. I cannot fully back the libertarian party on it's foreign policy. This was a major issue I had with Clinton and his administration with their refusal to get involved with the genocide in Rwanda. And now it's really hit a nerve with me after hearing about what Ron Paul said in 2009. When asked if he were president in 1942, and he knew about the holocaust, but the Nazis posed no threat to the U.S., would he intervene simply on the moral grounds to save the Jews he replied: “No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that."
Seriously? I'm not asking that America be the world police, but when you have the power to stop evil and you don't, then you are just as evil. Or in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it."
Such is the root of the problem. Corruption cannot be solved if we must depend on the corrupt to solve it. I'm probably on too many watch lists already to start publicly proposing my versions of a solution.
I know what you mean.
First thing is we have to get the electorate's attention away from the boob toob and back to things that matter, their future and the future of their children.
The same with Rwanda, right? And yet you have major issue with Clinton and his administration for not doing what isn't within its power to do? [1]
Going further, if you don't believe in being the world police, just where do YOU draw the line? Rwanda yes, Darfur no? Do you want to go help liberate the Iranians from their nut-job regime? How about the North Koreans? There is definitely evil in both of those places. Should we all start wearing braclets with 'What Would Ronin Do' on them? [2]
Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you post, or are you just sitting at your desk daydreaming all day long and thinking of ways that you can come on here and get an 'atta boy from a predominantly conservative group of people? Seriously! Good job dropping Slick Willies name in a manner that did nothing to support your alleged ALMOST 100% Libertarian beliefs. Us conservatives really hate us some Bill Clinton. Hell, I don't even remember why you mentioned him anymore! I just heard the name and got mad as hell and wanted to high-five you!
Your posts appear to increasingly be for the sole purpose of getting some applause... but not without exception. [3]
Lastly, Americans go over on their own time and dime and fight for causes quite often. Sometimes with weapons and sometimes not. They're just probably doing it on terms and with risks that you aren't comfortable enough with.[4]
I'll address each individually...
[1]- We wouldn't have had to go to war in Rwanda. Congress ultimately declares war but again, we haven't done so since WWII. Clinton could have pressured the UN to act, considering there were UN troops in Rwanda, before, during, and after the genocide. He could have deployed troops. He could have intervened in some way, shape or form, without congressional approval.
[2]- I'm not advocating we get involved everywhere bad things are happening. That would be overzealous of us and we shouldn't bear the weight of the worlds problems alone. Darfur? Yes. Watch "The Devil Came On Horseback," the documentary by an inactive Marine officer who was over there and saw first hand the atrocities. Screw Iran, we don't need to get involved... yet. Yes, they are committing multitudes of human rights violations, but they aren't exactly committing genocide just yet. And North Korea? When the international community is screaming for someone to get involved, that is when we should. Evil should most certainly be punished, but we cannot and should not get involved in every nit picking thing on this planet... it's hard to explain, but our involvement should be to try to promote liberty for all, but we cannot do it alone. I was speaking in terms of genocide... that is inexcusable, both the act, and the refusal to stop it.
[3]- I really don't know how to reply to this... um, I guess, you're wrong. I'm not trying to get applause or "atta boys" from anyone. I brought up William Jefferson Clinton because he pretty much did exactly what Paul would have done if he and his silly foreign policies had been president... NOTHING. I find it more shocking that Rwanda happened less than a year after Clinton gave his speech at the National Holocaust Museum in DC on it's grand opening, spouting "Never again," when it was clear he didn't have the stones to follow up on that promise. Would Paul have done the same thing? I believe so. "He who would turn a blind eye to evil is no better than he who commits evil." -Anonymous.
[4]- Not enough to make a real difference, and not where it is more sorely needed. I'm talking about actual "troops"- be it government or mercenary- going in and putting an end to things like the horrors in Darfur, the atrocities in Zimbabwe, and the genocide in Rwanda.
jhood001
08-27-2012, 12:53
A well formulated reply. Thank you!
[1]- We wouldn't have had to go to war in Rwanda. Congress ultimately declares war but again, we haven't done so since WWII. Clinton could have pressured the UN to act, considering there were UN troops in Rwanda, before, during, and after the genocide. He could have deployed troops. He could have intervened in some way, shape or form, without congressional approval.
Does that coincide with your libertarian views?
[2]- I'm not advocating we get involved everywhere bad things are happening. That would be overzealous of us and we shouldn't bear the weight of the worlds problems alone. Darfur? Yes. Watch "The Devil Came On Horseback," the documentary by an inactive Marine officer who was over there and saw first hand the atrocities. Screw Iran, we don't need to get involved... yet. Yes, they are committing multitudes of human rights violations, but they aren't exactly committing genocide just yet. And North Korea? When the international community is screaming for someone to get involved, that is when we should. Evil should most certainly be punished, but we cannot and should not get involved in every nit picking thing on this planet... it's hard to explain, but our involvement should be to try to promote liberty for all, but we cannot do it alone. I was speaking in terms of genocide... that is inexcusable, both the act, and the refusal to stop it.
Even with this clarification, I still don't believe your position is all that clear regarding when you believe the US should intervene. It isn't that I disagree with you, but without a clear standard, whether the US gets involved or not can always be played politically before, during, or after any intervention. Or, intervention can occur for geo-strategic, business, or other reasons and done so under the guise humanitarian purposes.
Is it the body count that decides for you? Whether it is a 'fair fight'? The death of civilians/unarmed combatants? Or would you go with the UN's definition, which can be interpreted in different ways by different people? If it is a matter of international outcry, should it then be up to the UN to decide and they can further tell us how many troops to commit, for how long, and how to conduct combat operations?
Basically, if you could craft a law that would automatically force a congressional vote to intervene if certain conditions were met, what would those conditions be? And how would you define victory conditions so that we know when to come home?
Does that coincide with your libertarian views?
In a sense... no. That's where I'm not really a libertarian. When it comes to foreign policy I just can't do it. I've been overseas, I've seen first hand the evil that humans are capable of, and I just can't sit by and say "It's no threat to us, we shouldn't get involved." Maybe that's a fault I have?
Even with this clarification, I still don't believe your position is all that clear regarding when you believe the US should intervene. It isn't that I disagree with you, but without a clear standard, whether the US gets involved or not can always be played politically before, during, or after any intervention. Or, intervention can occur for geo-strategic, business, or other reasons and done so under the guise humanitarian purposes.
Is it the body count that decides for you? Whether it is a 'fair fight'? The death of civilians/unarmed combatants? Or would you go with the UN's definition, which can be interpreted in different ways by different people? If it is a matter of international outcry, should it then be up to the UN to decide and they can further tell us how many troops to commit, for how long, and how to conduct combat operations?
Basically, if you could craft a law that would automatically force a congressional vote to intervene if certain conditions were met, what would those conditions be? And how would you define victory conditions so that we know when to come home?
These are all very good questions, and honestly, I really can't say. I mean without getting into it every time something bad happens to innocent people, at what point do you draw the line and say "this has got to stop"? I will for one say that in a situation like Rwanda, when UN troops, and non-citizen visitors (including a few Americans) make calls to their higher ups and implore the international community to get involved and put a stop to this (remember, the Hutus killed at a rate that was 300% faster and more efficient than Hitler) and they all cite Somalia or say they don't want to get involved in another conflict in Africa, then we have a serious problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.