American Libertarianism Needs an “Empire Of Liberty” Foreign Policy

Introduction

As readers of this online journal may know, I am a United States citizen whose political beliefs are aligned with Libertarianism in the United States. However, the fact that I favor a foreign policy that, in Wikipedia’s words, “promotes individual liberty and minimized government” somehow only puts me among 45% of my own movement on average, says Pew’s “In Search of Libertarians”. I am going to carefully break down what makes American libertarianism inherently in harmony with an “Empire of Liberty” foreign policy.

Empire of Liberty?

No, not literally an empire. Actually, quite the opposite of a traditional ’empire’: a global federation wherein every nation on the planet is its own autonomous hardcore-libertarian republic. A more literal title would be “Planet of Liberty” or “Federation of Liberty”.

Thomas Jefferson himself did not envision a single, unified empire. Instead, and in today’s world, nearly 200 nations would ideally maintain national independence for as long as they are lands of individual liberty and minimized government.

Support among fellow libertarians for Empire of Liberty

Remember the Pew report I linked to? Well, let us see what the exact data says:

Out of the 36 million of us in this country, 11% of the national population;

  • 54% of my political faction says America is better off paying little to no attention overseas. I myself am in the 43% who say America is best off being highly active in the world. 3% I am assuming just do not care what kind of foreign policy we have.
  • 46% of my fellow libertarians think American involvement overseas either usually or always makes foreign problems worse. I myself fit into the 47% who believe that foreign problems would be worse without American involvement. Once again, there is a neutral 7% of libertarians on the issue of US involvement overseas.
  • On average this makes only half of the libertarian movement to be the kind of passionately Non-interventionist mindset Ron Paul has. 45% favor an Empire of Liberty foreign policy. And I am only guessing that perhaps the remaining 5% on average just don’t pay enough attention to foreign affairs and defense issues to fully pick a side.

So it would seem that there is a 10 to 9 ratio of libertarians against Empire of Liberty to libertarians for Empire of Liberty. Among us Libertarians In The United States, I am one of 16 million who support an Empire of Liberty foreign policy.

What’s Your Format for an “Empire Of Liberty” foreign policy, Mr. LD Atheist?

How would an “Empire of Liberty” foreign policy differ from the jingoistic Democracy-building foreign policy of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama? Well, as I write in my essay called “Democracy Vs Freedom“, the key to Peace On Earth is not to spread Democracy overseas but to spread Freedom overseas, and I even broke down how the ideals of Democracy Agenda and Freedom Agenda are radically different from each other.

  • Freedom depends not on how democratic a government is but on how limited a government is
  • Freedom is economically all on how free-market your economic policies are
  • Freedom is socially all on how free-society your social policies are.
  • Freedom can co-exist with Non-electoral or pseudo-electoral government, as is currently evident in much of present-day Western, Northern and also Southern Europe. Japan is also an example of monarchy being able to allow freedom to exist, thanks to its Constitution.
  • Freedom always needs a Constitution that gives freedoms in order to ensure the government abides by the principles of individual liberty and minimized government.

There is more to spreading freedom than just doing so militarily. There is also, and preferably, spreading freedom economically through free trade, and spreading freedom diplomatically through cultural exchange, also called globalization.

For tyrannies who are actually honest friends of the United States, who instinctively side with us in our fight against Islamic Nationalism; such nations are best reformed to nations of individual liberty and minimized government by means of us removing barriers on free trade and stepping globalization with them. Morally, free trade and globalization are preferable not just to fair trade and globalization but also to war. Most of America’s liberation of Europe from Christian Nationalism was done through free trade and cultural exchange. Little of this liberation, if any at all, was done through waging war. There are even hybrid regimes in Eastern Europe we as a nation should be stepping up free trade and globalization with by ending regulation of trade and renouncing protectionism. I can name a good amount of these Eastern European nations off my head. Point being foreign nations of any kind who are NOT dangers to the United States are the foreign nations we should bring individual liberty and minimized government to via free trade and globalization.

BUT, if some foreign tyranny is a threat to the United States, and proves itself so by sponsoring Islamic Nationalist and/or Marxist-Leninist guerrillas’ acts of malum in se against American people, and our intel-gatherers have undeniable evidence to prove this notion to be fact, then be ready and willing to use overwhelming, retaliatory scorched-earth warfare against that tyranny and the Non-regime malum in se guerrillas it sponsors, and be ready and willing to give no quarter to the tyranny or to any of those Non-regime guerrillas it gives aid, comfort and money to. Then, after swift and complete military victory, we need to immediately bring our troops home so that we the civilians can do free trade and cultural exchange with the foreign civilian population who, under this format, would have unconditionally surrendered over having lost their government and their government’s guerrilla style pawns, and over needing some civilian population to buy supplies from in order to start their own civilization, a civilization built on the Classical Liberal values of individual liberty and minimized government. How would prices be worked out? If you know me you know my answer:

  • Prices would be and should be set freely by mutual agreement between us American civilians and the newly liberated foreign civilians based on the realities of supply and demand, with said realities being free from any kind of government regulations or any kind of corporate monopolies.

This is a fine little sample of just how vastly I oppose Neoconservatives: They favor a PC policy of using limited warfare against enemy military, hitting an enemy government softly with Underwhelming military force, and they believe that the goal should be to build a Democracy via Long-time military invasion and occupation, whether the target nation is a danger or not.

I am among the people who favor a reality-based policy of using total warfare against enemy military, hitting an enemy government hard with Overwhelming military force, and we believe the goal should be to enable the civilian population to independently build their own limited government via free trade and globalization with us, but we only support war against tyranny-regimes who clearly and directly threaten our national population. Again, as for regimes of tyranny, or of any kind of governance, who are behaviorally true friends to the US, free trade and globalization with them from minute number one.

This format would also include preempting near-future wars of aggression and preventing far-future wars of aggression, but in both cases ONLY upon intel-gatherers proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a foreign nation’s regime is a clear and direct threat to American civilians. A long trail of Non-sequester Jingoistic gibberish by a presidential administration is not proof.

Speaking of presidential administrations, this format would not allow the President to declare any wars without the permission of Congress, this format would only allow Congress to wage war, but would not allow Congress to regulate US military strategists. The reasoning being that because Constitutionally only Congress can decide whether to wage war, not the Presidential Administration.

Conclusion

To close up, a foreign policy based on “Empire of Liberty” is really what Libertarianism needs in the United States. Not the “Empire of Democracy” rhetoric of Republicans, and also not the politically correct diplomacy rhetoric of Democrats. But also not the hardcore Non-intervention that permeates the Libertarian [Party] National Committee.

Thank you all for reading this,

~LDA

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s