Why Are So Many 'Libertarians' Pro-War?

[Geoist]

This is a trend that I have noticed lately (on DebatePolitics and outside of it). Many individuals label themselves as 'libertarian' and yet support wars of aggression/choice such as Iraq War and supplying militant rebels (many of them who hate the US) with publicly-funded arms. Yes, libertarians are a diverse lot along with other ideologies. And true, someone does not have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. But I cannot stress enough how anti-libertarian wars of choice really are. With each war the State grows exponentially (I think its 25%). Our debt continues to grow thanks to the wars, as well. Furthermore, government intrusion on the lives of the citizenry becomes more rampant.

For a libertarian to support wars of choice is an oxymoron and counterproductive to the cause. End rant.

 

[Redress]

This is a trend that I have noticed lately (on DebatePolitics and outside of it). Many individuals label themselves as 'libertarian' and yet support wars of aggression/choice such as Iraq War and supplying militant rebels (many of them who hate the US) with publicly-funded arms. Yes, libertarians are a diverse lot along with other ideologies. And true, someone does not have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. But I cannot stress enough how anti-libertarian wars of choice really are. With each war the State grows exponentially (I think its 25%). Our debt continues to grow thanks to the wars, as well. Furthermore, government intrusion on the lives of the citizenry becomes more rampant.

For a libertarian to support wars of choice is an oxymoron and counterproductive to the cause. End rant.

Not to support libertarians(cuz that ain't gunna happen), but...supporting a war is a far different thing than being pro-war. Most people realize that sometimes war is the best way to bring about a desired result.

 

[Geoist]

Not to support libertarians(cuz that ain't gunna happen), but...supporting a war is a far different thing than being pro-war. Most people realize that sometimes war is the best way to bring about a desired result.

In my rant I went into that a bit. By 'pro-war' I mean those who support wars of choice (ie Iraq War). I do think one could be for a defensive war and still be libertarian (or whatever ideology that normally opposes war).

 

[ecofarm]

World liberty is just as important as US liberty.

 

[Geoist]

World liberty is just as important as US liberty.

So growing the State promotes liberty?

 

[Redress]

In my rant I went into that a bit. By 'pro-war' I mean those who support wars of choice (ie Iraq War). I do think one could be for a defensive war and still be libertarian (or whatever ideology that normally opposes war).

Which Iraq war? Both where optional. But I think the first was an appropriate reaction to the events happening at the time. The second, not so much. Being "pro-war" or "anti-war" is to my mind too simplistic. Libertarians, just like normal people(see what I did there? :lol, should be able to judge wars on their merits, and arrive at their own conclusions. Just because they are nutty libertarians does not mean we should not hold them to any different standard than regular people.

 

[Redress]

World liberty is just as important as US liberty.

Not to me it isn't. Just pointing that out. I value my country more than any other country.

 

[ecofarm]

So growing the State promotes liberty?

There is no state growth in the liberation of the oppressed. Such is a massive reduction in state power and highly beneficial to ecology, if only one can grasp a global perspective and the implications of representation.

 

[ecofarm]

Not to me it isn't. Just pointing that out. I value my country more than any other country.

I was not under the impression that everyone agrees with me, there are many nationalists.

 

[Redress]

I was not under the impression that everyone agrees with me, there are many nationalists.

Valuing the lives and wellbeing of those closest to you over those less close in not really nationalism.

 

[Geoist]

Which Iraq war?

The one known as Iraq War. The other was called the Persian Gulf War.

Both where optional.

Yes, they were.

But I think the first was an appropriate reaction to the events happening at the time.

That's fine. But I don't see how someone who calls themselves a libertarian can think it is appropriate.

Libertarians, just like normal people(see what I did there? :lol,

Lol.

should be able to judge wars on their merits, and arrive at their own conclusions. Just because they are nutty libertarians does not mean we should not hold them to any different standard than regular people.

As individuals they certainly are within their rights to judge wars on their merits. But I think when libertarianism is so diluted with people on each extreme of the political spectrum (especially on this issue) it takes away any meaning to the term.
Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert -- Antiwar.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

World liberty is just as important as US liberty.

Nonsense! Do you really think we give a hoot how Saudi Arabia or China treats their citizens as long as they leave us alone and trade "nicely"?

 

[mpg]

In my rant I went into that a bit. By 'pro-war' I mean those who support wars of choice (ie Iraq War). I do think one could be for a defensive war and still be libertarian (or whatever ideology that normally opposes war).

Every war is a war of choice.

 

[mpg]

There are degrees of libertarianism. I wanna cut the defense budget in half, while others wanna cut it by ~90%.

 

[Geoist]

There is no state growth in the liberation of the oppressed.

There has been exponential US State growth since 9/11 mainly due to War on Terror.
U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11 - Analysis
A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

 

[ecofarm]

Nonsense! Do you really think we give a hoot how Saudi Arabia or China treats their citizens as long as they leave us alone and trade "nicely"?

Some of us do.

 

[ecofarm]

There has been exponential US State growth since 9/11 mainly due to War on Terror.
U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11 - Analysis
A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

Do you not understand the phrase "global perspective"?

 

[Geoist]

Every war is a war of choice.

You know what I mean. If we are attacked by another nation then we are forced to go to war. We were not attacked by Saddam Hussein therefore, war of choice (or aggression, whatever you want to call it).

 

[Geoist]

Do you not understand the phrase "global perspective"?

Do you understand that has nothing to do with the topic?

 

[mpg]

This is a trend that I have noticed lately (on DebatePolitics and outside of it). Many individuals label themselves as 'libertarian' and yet support wars of aggression/choice such as Iraq War and supplying militant rebels (many of them who hate the US) with publicly-funded arms. Yes, libertarians are a diverse lot along with other ideologies. And true, someone does not have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. But I cannot stress enough how anti-libertarian wars of choice really are. With each war the State grows exponentially (I think its 25%). Our debt continues to grow thanks to the wars, as well. Furthermore, government intrusion on the lives of the citizenry becomes more rampant.

For a libertarian to support wars of choice is an oxymoron and counterproductive to the cause. End rant.

First you have to define "pro-war". If you define it too broadly, it won't contradict libertarianism. If you define it too narrowly, it won't fit anyone who I've ever met. I really don't think there's any space between those two things.

 

[Geoist]

Some of us do.

A true libertarian would then say spend your own money to support a militia/mercenary group to go into those countries. But do not expect the rest of us who do not support these wars to spend our money on it.

 

[ecofarm]

Valuing the lives and wellbeing of those closest to you over those less close in not really nationalism.

I don't think you're doing that. The lives close to us are 1000x better than living in a totalitarian genocidal terrorist state. The way I see it, you're worried about the king having a new gem in his crown while the peasants go hungry. The fact that you completely lack perspective or grey area of any sort in your analysis illustrates the myopic nature of your position.

When a woman is mutilated, institutionally raped and honor killed, it matters not to me if she is an American or otherwise - it's unacceptable and we are morally obligated to help those in need wherever they may be. Obviously, we cannot do everything in the world at the same time, so we need to carefully consider individual context and arrange priorities for every tool in the diplomatic tool box (including diplomacy, economic engagement, foreign aid and, yes, even war).

 

[mpg]

You know what I mean. If we are attacked by another nation then we are forced to go to war. We were not attacked by Saddam Hussein therefore, war of choice (or aggression, whatever you want to call it).

Aside from WW II/Pearl Harbor, you've just described every war the US was ever involved in.

 

[Geoist]

There are degrees of libertarianism. I wanna cut the defense budget in half, while others wanna cut it by ~90%.

Certainly there are varying degrees. But I don't see how supporting neo-imperialist policies is the least bit libertarian.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Some of us do.

Not near enough to influence our foreign policy. Playing world policeman is not in our best interest and, as the OP noted, is a very expensive thing to attempt.