Hello. I, the Libertarian Defense Atheist, did some reading about the Bush and Obama Doctrines on Wikipedia. And I have thought well about developing an alternative to both that has Free Trade and Free Migration as pillars while focusing on Defense, specifically Self-Defense And Defense Of Others. I am going to break down my proposal for the liberty movement in foreign policy, my alternative not just to the Bush and Obama Doctrines but also alternative to mainstream libertarianism’s current foreign policy of Non-interventionism as well. Civilization cannot survive on a humble foreign policy of diplomacy and trade alone.
(Pillar 1) Free Trade
Foreign policy should seek to emphasize free trade as the best form of global interaction for the domestic economy. Free trade, meaning no taxing of imports or exports and minimal regulation that’s only for upholding basic human rights, is mutually prospering between nations. Republics like the US and other Western world countries are much more interest in trade than in conquest, most Monarchies on Earth were changed into Republics across America’s first full century of independence by free trade. US Foreign policy reform for the best economically means tearing down all legal barriers to overseas trade and reducing regulations to just a simple and cosmic norm of human rights.
(Pillar 2) Free Migration
Individuals need to be able to freely travel and move to anywhere they want and still have economic freedom and personal liberty. This notion is known as free migration, but can also be called freedom of movement. The most prominent advocates of free migration are, you guessed it, actual free market capitalists who have nothing to do with corporatism. Freedom of Movement and Free Migration, like Free Trade, must also be ruled by the Congress as Ninth Amendment Rights for every American.
(Pillar 3) Defensive Militarism
Yes, this is a thing. Defensive militarism basically means the idea that one’s nation should have a strong military defense and should be prepared to use it ruthlessly to defend the lives of innocent individuals from their attackers. Agreeably, Aggressive militarism like in North Korea and other Monarchies is inherently wrong, yes. But defensive militarism on the other hand highlights a similar difference to the moral difference between Defensive War and War of Aggression. I put the phrase here ‘defensive militarism’ to promote Right of Self-Defense for all Republics.
And yes, I am using ‘republic’ and ‘monarchy’ as synonyms for ‘libertarian regime’ and ‘authoritarian regime’, respectively.
(Pillar 4) Honest Friendship with Fellow Republics Only
Diplomacy is another key component for a legit libertarian foreign policy, at least according to my Defense Doctrine it is. The US needs to seek to only be friends with other Republics, which currently means only be friends with European and other Westernized nations. Again, this is only pragmatic diplomacy, as honest non-alliance friendship has the common ground with stable alliance of only being possible between republics and republics. Never between republics and monarchies and also never between monarchies and monarchies. Republics must seek to be honest friends with each other at all times, for all time. Republics must also seek to avoid attempting friendships with Monarchies, as monarchies are historically proven to only be interested in conquest and slaughter.
Just let me explain the pattern I am getting at here: Thomas Paine noted in 1776 with his nonfiction novel Common Sense that republics never take innocent lives and only wage war sparingly and even then only to defend innocent lives. He also noted that monarchies inherently are proud to be addicts to murdering innocent people and waging wars of conquest out of egotistical pursuit of their religious fanatic agendas. Then nearly two centuries later Rudolph Rummel, a political scientist, tested Paine’s claims with political science and found Mr. Paine to be indisputably right about these points of his.
(Pillar 5) Telling Stable Apart from Unstable in Alliances
Based on the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, this pillar is all about knowing exactly who a Republic’s real allies are. Monarchies are just not capable of Stable alliances. Which is exactly the kind of alliances libertarians should be advocating, Stable Alliance with all Republics, and No Unstable Alliances (aka alliances with monarchies) ever. Republics can trust each other to both be stable allies and to be truly non-alliance friends in the same way city police departments can trust each other. And monarchies can only be stable ally and legit non-alliance friend to themselves in the same way local gangs can only trust themselves to be honest friend and/or stable ally. Here is a history lesson about monarchies not being capable of honest friendship or of stable alliance: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, whose ‘kings’ were respectively Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, singed a non-aggression pact with each other in the early parts of World War II to ensure honest friendship but not alliance of any sort. But then a few years afterward the Nazi monarchy… invaded the Soviet monarchy and killed lots of Soviet-enslaved civilians! Even today, making friendships and/or alliances with monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, or the Palestinian Government is like making friendships and/or alliances with drug cartels or slave-trader hordes: one year they act legit, like Saudi Arabia was to us, the next year they sponsor the deadliest violent crimes on your property’s recorded history, like Saudi Arabia did in providing 15 of the 19 perps of 9/11.
- Prioritize Unrestricted Free Trade
- Free Migration & Freedom of Movement
- Collective Right of Self-Defense
- Know how an Honest Friend treats you
- Know how a Stable Ally treats you
That took me some time to think through carefully. But of course I know there will be both people who agree with me and people who don’t. I just am thankful you read this top to bottom,