Why Are So Many 'Libertarians' Pro-War?

[instagramsci]

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.

most american libertarians are really republicans but they like the warm feeling they get from having part of their affiliations name contain "liberty"

 

[Master PO]

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.

this does not include me in my thinking.

 

[Geoist]

most american libertarians are really republicans but they like the warm feeling they get from having part of their affiliations name contain "liberty"

I definitely wouldn't say "most" but there are certainly a growing number of Republicans calling themselves 'libertarian' for a variety of reasons. Maybe some have seen the light on the Drug War or just get turned off by the Bible-thumpers/social conservatives. But some still hold strongly to the militarist propaganda.

In any case, most American right-libertarians I've met may have once been Republicans but have generally disassociated with the Party altogether (and are strongly anti-war).

 

[Geoist]

this does not include me in my thinking.

Judging from your posts I've read, I didn't think so.

 

[DDD]

Playing world policeman is not in our best interest and, as the OP noted, is a very expensive thing to attempt.

The expenses of playing world policeman could be compensated. What I think you lack in this grand mission to liberate people worldwide is wanting help back.

You do get great friends in your quest. But we do not know whether you need help, where to help you back (cut expenses), or are you willing to take help back in the first place?

What I would like to occur is a pure direct communication as it is done among friends. State we would like some support here, here, and we are a bit weak here, this is top priority here, anything you think you could do about it?

Expecting that we would figure it out on our own is far stretched I think. Plus even if we were to identify areas open for contribution there is always a potential to deny the existence of such weakness in the first place.

"This is 'Merica! We got no weaknesses! Mind your own business!"

 

[German guy]

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.

I have great respect for genuine libertarians, who disagree with "big government" even when it's about a big military or "national security" matters, and even when a Republican is in office.

Problem is, many people calling themselves "libertarian" are actually not genuine libertarians, but simply conservatives with emphasis on the economy, who just picked that label because it's fancy.

 

[Master PO]

Judging from your posts I've read, I didn't think so.

well i would like for you if you could find where i am for imperialism, i have spoke out against it many times.

 

[washunut]

I have great respect for genuine libertarians, who disagree with "big government" even when it's about a big military or "national security" matters, and even when a Republican is in office.

Problem is, many people calling themselves "libertarian" are actually not genuine libertarians, but simply conservatives with emphasis on the economy, who just picked that label because it's fancy.

So these people are either liars or are ashamed to be called left or right so they hide under the libertarian umbrella.

Perhaps there is another answer. People have views on many things for various reasons. No matter which party a person is affiliated with, he/she may have some views that do not fit with the party line view. Does that mean that they are not "pure" enough to call themselves part of a certain movement.

For example, in the U.S. if you espouse views that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, do you have to call yourself a zebra to fit your party line thinking?

 

[dnsmith]

After reading a number of pages of posts it appears there are several threads weaving their way through this discussion.

Willingness to fight a war does not mean people like war, but recognize the need to crop some issues early to prevent too much spread.

Willingness to go to war to end oppression does not suggest imperialistic desires.

Defense of ones homeland does not mean waiting until the "Enemy is At the Gate."

 

[dnsmith]

For example, in the U.S. if you espouse views that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, do you have to call yourself a zebra to fit your party line thinking?

Were you trying to intentionally describe me, or did it just happen accidently?

 

[washunut]

Were you trying to intentionally describe me, or did it just happen accidently?

Actually I was describing myself!

 

[German guy]

So these people are either liars or are ashamed to be called left or right so they hide under the libertarian umbrella.

Perhaps there is another answer. People have views on many things for various reasons. No matter which party a person is affiliated with, he/she may have some views that do not fit with the party line view. Does that mean that they are not "pure" enough to call themselves part of a certain movement.

For example, in the U.S. if you espouse views that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, do you have to call yourself a zebra to fit your party line thinking?

Good points.

I just think it's not really coherent when you claim you hate the Democrat in office and his healthcare plan because it's "big government", but on the other side have no problem with "huge government" when the President in office has an "R" attached to its name and it's about military expenditures and quasi-fascist authoritarian policies such as extralegal detentions and denial of fair trials for terror suspects. In that case, you're simply not a coherent libertarian and the label is misapplied.

 

[washunut]

Good points.

I just think it's not really coherent when you claim you hate the Democrat in office and his healthcare plan because it's "big government", but on the other side have no problem with "huge government" when the President in office has an "R" attached to its name and it's about military expenditures and quasi-fascist authoritarian policies such as extralegal detentions and denial of fair trials for terror suspects. In that case, you're simply not a coherent libertarian and the label is misapplied.

Certainly you will find some folks who do that. Just as you folks who hated war until Obama increased troops in Afghanistan, or who hated the patriot act when Bush wanted it but now not only say the Patriot act is fine, but so is hoovering up all phone calls made by Americans and stored away for five years.

Not sure why you would focus on so called libertarians when I would state that most politically partisan people are hypocrites. For those it is party above values. No matter what folks bent is, I have a hard time with any person who twists logic to support "their guy".

 

[Geoist]

well i would like for you if you could find where i am for imperialism, i have spoke out against it many times.

I never said you were for imperialism. I still believe MOST libertarians are anti-wars of aggression. But there is a growing number who identify themselves as 'libertarian' and yet support the State's neo-imperialist policies.

 

[Geoist]

Willingness to fight a war does not mean people like war, but recognize the need to crop some issues early to prevent too much spread.

Willingness to go to war to end oppression does not suggest imperialistic desires.

No one ever claims to 'like' war. And I do think there are wars that may be necessary. But supporting the perpetual War on Terror is NOT pro-libertarian as it promotes the growth of the State. Also, libertarians look to private and voluntary means of ending problems. They do not look to the State to end those problems.

 

[Geoist]

Problem is, many people calling themselves "libertarian" are actually not genuine libertarians, but simply conservatives with emphasis on the economy, who just picked that label because it's fancy.

Right now I'm debating a 'libertarian' who thinks the Drug War is the greatest thing since sliced bread. :doh

 

[dnsmith]

No one ever claims to 'like' war. And I do think there are wars that may be necessary. But supporting the perpetual War on Terror is NOT pro-libertarian as it promotes the growth of the State. Also, libertarians look to private and voluntary means of ending problems. They do not look to the State to end those problems.

I personally believe we should continue to go after terrorists. I am not libertarian, nor am I particularly conservative I tend to lean left of center on most things. In a sense one could say I am libertarian only as it applies to every citizen of every country in the world and that those citizens all deserve to be liberated from oppression.

 

[Spriggs05]

Good points.

I just think it's not really coherent when you claim you hate the Democrat in office and his healthcare plan because it's "big government", but on the other side have no problem with "huge government" when the President in office has an "R" attached to its name and it's about military expenditures and quasi-fascist authoritarian policies such as extralegal detentions and denial of fair trials for terror suspects.

People vote by letter not name.

 

[solletica]

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

The US military doesn't liberate the oppressed (not since WWII). It just takes money out of my pocket to try (albeit fruitlessly) to conquer other nations for the benefit of politicians' corporate sponsors.

Real libertarians consider the US military to be expensive fungus.

 

[Redress]

People vote by letter not name.

Really? I vote by candidate and there position on issues. Sorry that I don't do it the apparently approved libertarian way.

 

[dnsmith]

The US military doesn't liberate the oppressed (not since WWII). It just takes money out of my pocket to try (albeit fruitlessly) to conquer other nations for the benefit of politicians' corporate sponsors.

Real libertarians consider the US military to be expensive fungus.

If you believe any of that I suspect you know little about the military. The first obvious challenge is, the military does not go to war on its own, they are put there by the civilian leaders of our country.

 

[solletica]

If you believe any of that I suspect you know little about the military. The first obvious challenge is, the military does not go to war on its own, they are put there by the civilian leaders of our country.

The people are NOT in the chain of command. . .

Corporations/oil cos./hedge funds/private equity firms/offense contractors/high net-worth individuals -> (lobbyists/PACs) -> CINC -> SECDEF -> UCCs -> Generals -> Senior enlisted officers -> troops

 

[Psychoclown]

I'm a libertarian who is maybe a little more hawkish than some. In foreign policy, I tend to favor the realist school of thought and think the government should promote American interests on the international stage. I have little sympathy for idealistic crusades on the international stage - whether its neoconservatism, humanitarian arguments, or a belief in strict non-interventionism. After all, international politics is the closest thing we have to a Hobbesian state of nature where the strongest reign supreme and answer to no superior power. So therefore I don't rule out wars of choice. For the example the Gulf War and the subsequent containment of Saddam Huissein's forces was perfectly acceptable to me.

I do think the subsequent Iraq War was a mistake that has only given us a list of casualties, a mountain of debt, and left behind an unstable nation that is still plagued by deep divisions and violence. In short, Iraq cost us a ton and we didn't gain anything from it. Huissein was already well contained and while he was a monstrous dictator, he was no threat to US interests or to the stability of the region in general.

In general though, I do think US interests would be best served by a policy of non-intervention. Our constant meddling in the affairs of other nations has earned us many enemies and detractors. And even more importantly, we often gained little to nothing for our efforts.