Can't 100% back libertarianism

[Ronin13]

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."

[TFOGGER]

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]

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...

[Irving]

I'm sure the Libertarian party is in tears over you not being 100% on board with them Ronin.

[asmo]

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.

[TFOGGER]

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...

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.

[asmo]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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!