It's Time for Libertarians to Be Serious

[LowDown]

Libertarianism, if we are to believe none other than The New York Times, has become quite chic [over the last few years].

[Indeed, who could live under the current President and still believe whole heartedly in big government?]

But paradoxically, during this same time frame, it has become perhaps even more evident that one of the apparent tenets of libertarianism — a kind of neo-isolationism — is, well, to put it bluntly, insane. In the era of the Islamic State (not to mention a dozen other similar murderous, increasingly global organizations we could name or are being invented as I write), anyone who believes we can roll up the gangplanks to create the perfect libertarian state and everything will be just ducky is living in dreamland.

But a fair number of libertarians are. As an example, one of the leading spokesmen for the movement (I’ll be gracious by not naming him, because he’s probably embarrassed at this point) was quoted as likening the problem of Islamic terrorism to herpes — I guess he meant an annoyance you can live with if you find the right partner (who doesn’t behead you).

Do those same isolationist libertarians think that one Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, current leader of the Islamic State, was kidding when he said “See you in New York” when let out of detention camp in Iraq in 2009? If not, what do they propose to do about it? Wait until he is in New York? Maybe Eric Holder will arrest him. Or maybe he’ll blow up the Stock Exchange and sink the free market. Or one of his now thousands of minions will. Do you want to sit back to wait to find out?

It's the wrong time to be sticking to a rigid ideology. Pulling up the gangplanks and ignoring the world never works. Japan tried it, and Admiral Perry came knocking. China tried it and ended up with two opium wars and the destruction of the Empire. Stalin tried it, and Hitler attacked. The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives. It's almost gone thanks to the feckless, non-existent, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy of Pres. Obama that has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.

It's not enough to say that we will respond as necessary. If we end up fighting on our own territory we have already lost.

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Roger L. Simon » Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

 

[TheNextEra]

It's the wrong time to be sticking to a rigid ideology. Pulling up the gangplanks and ignoring the world never works. Japan tried it, and Admiral Perry came knocking. China tried it and ended up with two opium wars and the destruction of the Empire. Stalin tried it, and Hitler attacked. The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives. It's almost gone thanks to the feckless, non-existent, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy of Pres. Obama that has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.

It's not enough to say that we will respond as necessary. If we end up fighting on our own territory we have already lost.

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Roger L. Simon » Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

I am not for isolationism but at the same time I don't follow the whole "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine either. It just bites us later on.

I'm all for striking ISIS, but I am not for the U.S. going in alone again with boots on the ground and the U.S. sacrificing both money and lives alone. Time for other countries to pony up or we let the problem get bad enough over there to justify nukes.

 

[LagerHead]

It's the wrong time to be sticking to a rigid ideology. Pulling up the gangplanks and ignoring the world never works. Japan tried it, and Admiral Perry came knocking. China tried it and ended up with two opium wars and the destruction of the Empire. Stalin tried it, and Hitler attacked. The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives. It's almost gone thanks to the feckless, non-existent, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy of Pres. Obama that has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.

It's not enough to say that we will respond as necessary. If we end up fighting on our own territory we have already lost.

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Roger L. Simon » Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

And fighting a faceless enemy is going to be a better strategy?

 

[PoS]

Roger L Simon (whoever he is, never heard of the guy until now) is an idiot. He fails to see that the real reason why radical Islam is growing is precisely due to the constant military interventions by the West.

 

[tres borrachos]

Roger L Simon (whoever he is, never heard of the guy until now) is an idiot. He fails to see that the real reason why radical Islam is growing is precisely due to the constant military interventions by the West.

I had to Google him. I also never heard of the guy. And after Googling, I concur with you. He's an idiot.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

It's almost funny how difficult it is for some, maybe most, Usians to accept the idea that foreigners might take exception to, and seek vengeance for, the US bombing with seeming impunity intermittenly for decades.

 

[fedup]

Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism. Non-intervention in foreign policy is not about "ignoring the world." It's the absolute opposite.

 

[LowDown]

Roger L Simon (whoever he is, never heard of the guy until now) is an idiot. He fails to see that the real reason why radical Islam is growing is precisely due to the constant military interventions by the West.

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

 

[29A]

It's the wrong time to be sticking to a rigid ideology. Pulling up the gangplanks and ignoring the world never works. Japan tried it, and Admiral Perry came knocking. China tried it and ended up with two opium wars and the destruction of the Empire. Stalin tried it, and Hitler attacked. The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives. It's almost gone thanks to the feckless, non-existent, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy of Pres. Obama that has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.

It's not enough to say that we will respond as necessary. If we end up fighting on our own territory we have already lost.

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Roger L. Simon » Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

From the article, "But paradoxically, during this same time frame, it has become perhaps even more evident that one of the apparent tenets of libertarianism — a kind of neo-isolationism — is, well, to put it bluntly, insane. In the era of the Islamic State (not to mention a dozen other similar murderous, increasingly global organizations we could name or are being invented as I write), anyone who believes we can roll up the gangplanks to create the perfect libertarian state and everything will be just ducky is living in dreamland. "

A pejorative term - it seems to depend on who's defining "neo-isolationism", and whether one considers how much US policies have contributed to the world's current status. As Rand Paul defines "neo-isolationism":

The Senator criticized neoconservatives for having forsaken this tradition, arguing that they really promote “not a neoconservatism but a neoisolationism in which diplomacy is distrusted and war is, if not the first option, the preferred option.”

“Neoconservatives brag of their desire for engagement, but increasingly preach a doctrine that is hostile to diplomatic engagement,” said Paul. “To this crowd, everyone who doesn’t agree with them is the next Chamberlain. To this crowd, anyone who doesn’t clamor first for the military option is somehow an isolationist. The irony is that the crowd that claims they want to engage often opposes diplomatic engagement.”

Neoconservatives, he added, dwell “inside an echo chamber that isolates itself from negotiation.”
Rand Paul Slams GOP Isolationists | The Libertarian Republic

 

[LagerHead]

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

You answered your own question. Most of their conflicts are with each other, or their neighbors. Why is the U.S. different? Because we constantly play in their sandbox, if you'll pardon the pun. Why else did they pick the U.S. as the target for 9/11? It's precisely because we refuse to stay out of their business.

 

[LowDown]

Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism. Non-intervention in foreign policy is not about "ignoring the world." It's the absolute opposite.

The threashold at which many "non-interventionalists" set that would justify acting in self defense is so high that there is no practical difference between their non-interventionalism and isolationism from the standpoint of national defense.

A diplomatic relationship is a two way affair. In some cases non-intervention is not to be had.

 

[TeleKat]

The threashold at which many "non-interventionalists" set that would justify acting in self defense is so high that there is no practical difference between their non-interventionalism and isolationism from the standpoint of national defense.

A diplomatic relationship is a two way affair. In some cases non-intervention is not to be had.

Non-interventionism does not villanize self-defense, it is against getting involved in the affairs of other nations. If we are directly attacked and invaded, you will not see Libertarians refusing to fight. It's getting involved in the conflicts of other nations we have a problem with. Hence why it's non-interventionism rather than non-defensivism.

 

[Mithrae]

The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives.

And costed millions of lives also. I don't think anyone would deny that American dominance - however self-serving, hypocritical and callous it may generally be - is better than the would-be dominance of the Axis or Soviet powers. But as others have pointed out, the fact US military and foreign policy has always put international peace, democracy, development and foreigners' lives behind the interests of American companies and business relations has fostered virtually all the hatred and resentment which your columnist is now bemoaning as the justification for even more unilateral meddling.

 

[Respecthelect]

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Libertarian's have full and sufficient justification for a proper level of foreign vigilance within their existing philosophy, if they'd simply avail themselves of it.

Libertarian's believe in an individual right to freedom, mostly for the purpose of free-trade. This fundamental philosophy (free-trade) extends beyond our borders. Libertarian's need only reserve the right of free-trade with people who likewise, wish to trade. Therefore, foreign trade-routes must be kept open and those who would prevent free-trade may rightly be engaged.

This implementation of Libertarianism accomplishes all the goals required to limit foreign entanglements, yet ensure security for us and our trading partners. It also leads to a proper level of military involvement. Not so much that we're nation-building, but not so little we risk Western civilization.

 

[Sabanist]

You answered your own question. Most of their conflicts are with each other, or their neighbors. Why is the U.S. different? Because we constantly play in their sandbox, if you'll pardon the pun. Why else did they pick the U.S. as the target for 9/11? It's precisely because we refuse to stay out of their business.

China also has issues with islamic militants

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China

The popular libertarian claim that the us is causing its own terror is folly

 

[Sherman123]

It's the wrong time to be sticking to a rigid ideology. Pulling up the gangplanks and ignoring the world never works. Japan tried it, and Admiral Perry came knocking. China tried it and ended up with two opium wars and the destruction of the Empire. Stalin tried it, and Hitler attacked. The US interaction with the world for decades has been characterized by the Pax Americana, and that is the real deal that has saved myriad lives. It's almost gone thanks to the feckless, non-existent, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy of Pres. Obama that has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.

It's not enough to say that we will respond as necessary. If we end up fighting on our own territory we have already lost.

Libertarianism is the right solution for a lot of problems and the right policy for a lot of situations, but it's not a suicide pact.

Roger L. Simon » Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

I appreciate the acknowledgement of the perils of non-interventionism and the need for a robust and engaged foreign policy.

 

[PoS]

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

Im pretty sure that in those so-called 18 conflicts you mentioned the US or any of its allies was involved in one form or another so if you want to get specific we can discuss it. The fact is most of the conflicts in the Middle East is caused directly or indirectly due to intervention by Isreal or the West.

 

[Mithrae]

China also has issues with islamic militants

Terrorism in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The popular libertarian claim that the us is causing its own terror is folly

I'm sure life for Islamic folk in China is just as peachy as it is in Iraq

By the same reasoning, the existence of terrorists who are not Islamic must mean any claims that Islam causes terrorism are folly. Personally I think that many devout ideological commitments, be they Islamic, Christian, racist, nationalist or whatever, can lend themselves to violence and terrorism - such as blowing up abortion clinics or running around in ghost costumes - but especially under the right circumstances. Those circumstances particularly include oppression or poverty along with a sense of alienation, both of which the United States promotes with its self-interested foreign policy masquerading under a holier-than-thou "world policeman" guise.

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's time for libertarians to be serious and put their big boy pants on? Sure thing.

It's not the 18th century anymore. We don't need to march legions of soldiers into battle on horseback, blow war horns and drum up public support for war using persuasive rhetoric. Our intelligence agencies can silently pick people off with GPS-guided missiles dropped form predator drones using a laptop anywhere else in the world. The middle east threats, by comparison, are wielding knives.

It's time for pro-war folks to wake up and realize what century they're in.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

America is a country which has a deliberately, Cloward-Piven, sabotaged economy.

We have 17 Trillion Dollars of new National Debt, Thanks to Obama and Crew.

We have record numbers of people who are unemployed, under-employed, or given up to become employed.

We have dangerously high national debt to GDP numbers, and will soon fail to qualify for anything other than Junk Bond credit rates.

For Many Libertarians who are advocating what appears to be "Isolationism" on the surface, the issue is not that we do not WANT to be involved, it is that we recognize that we no longer have the Fiscal Means to be significantly involved.

Like the Fiscal Collapse of the Soviet Union, whether we like it or not, as you keep putting, America will pull back from its international involvements, because our foreign country competitors, such as Korea and China, will simple stop advancing America the Credit needed to continue down our current path.

Given that reality, we are far better off focusing our energies, as a Libertarian Party, on rebuilding our domestic Economic Strength, Energy Independence, Industrial Infrastructure, and getting our massed, middle income population properly educated in Industrial-Vocational Skills needed to create the kind of booming economy we see in Korea or China.

An example is the multi-billion dollar market for manufacturing Cell Phones. Even though American's invented both the semi-conductor microchip, and the spread spectrum encoded cell phone, we do not manufacture a single competitive Cell Phone model in the United States.

We do not manufacture the tower base LTE "Blades" which create the Network at all.

We do not manufacture the network servers which act as the back haul digital data stream at all.

We do not manufacture the coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, or antennas, at all.

There is one company, Motorola, which attempted to get such started, with their Moto-X phone model. It was a fairly poor performer, because it was designed and manufactured entirely in the United States, and we simply have no experience in that field, and lack the expertise seen in Korean companies.

We Libertarians should and NEED be putting our efforts at supporting this type of effort, until we start seeing successes.

The fact is, America not longer has the Economy to be the world's policeman, whether we want to or not!

If and When America is once again a First world economy, we can again begin to be significantly involved in international intervention.

-

 

[obvious Child]

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

If that is so...why are the Belgians and Canadians basically never targeted?

Why in hostage situations the terrorists go after Americans and British first and let the Canadians go?

Why do we never hear of Portuguese tourists being targeted? Some governments don't meddle in other's business and it shows.

 

[Respecthelect]

The middle east threats, by comparison, are wielding knives.

Obama-Kerry signed Iran's permission slip to develop nuclear weapons. Iran's been developing nuclear weapons for thirty years. Not "dirty bombs," but full fraction-of-a-Megaton nukes. Every middle east country that can afford nukes, is developing nukes.

If America or it's allies aren't nuked within ten-years, I'll be very surprised. And nuked within two-years is very likely.

One of Iran's enrichment centrifuge farms. Visit hosted by Iranian president and former hostage-taker, Ahmadinejad. Significantly more advanced than box-cutters.

How many times are we going to underestimate middle east capabilities and intentions? Look what they accomplished when they limited themselves to knives on 9/11. Imagine what they'll do with the nuclear weapons Obama just gave them?

 

[LagerHead]

China also has issues with islamic militants

Terrorism in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The popular libertarian claim that the us is causing its own terror is folly

Oh, because they can't be pissed at more than one country at a time, right? Got it. :roll:

 

[LowDown]

You answered your own question. Most of their conflicts are with each other, or their neighbors. Why is the U.S. different? Because we constantly play in their sandbox, if you'll pardon the pun. Why else did they pick the U.S. as the target for 9/11? It's precisely because we refuse to stay out of their business.

The US established a base in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis in response to the invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden's beef with the US in large part was that we had military installations on "holy" ground. His argument was really with the Saudi Royals, but he couldn't attack them because he knew if he did he'd be dead. Ironically, he regarded the US as a safer target.

It's impossible to engage in diplomacy in that region and not get entangled in this sort of thing. That's why the non-interventionism that so many libertarians claim quickly becomes isolationism. The point for them is to stay out of war, but it's impossible to do that and keep vital diplomatic relationships alive. We could not expect to turn our backs on the Saudis and remain their trading partner, so it isn't long before these libertarians start saying that we don't need the Saudis, and we don't need Iraq, we don't need foreign oil, and so on.

 

[LowDown]

If that is so...why are the Belgians and Canadians basically never targeted?

Why in hostage situations the terrorists go after Americans and British first and let the Canadians go?

Why do we never hear of Portuguese tourists being targeted? Some governments don't meddle in other's business and it shows.

Our allies in the Middle East don't turn to Belgium, Canada, or Portugal for help, they turn to us. So we become involved and become a target. We can't hope to maintain diplomatic relations and trade in the Middle East if we turn our backs on our friends there.