Non-interventionism is inherently wrong for American Foreign Policy
So even though I am a libertarian, I notice many ways in which Non-interventionist foreign policy gets awfully naive. Despite the fact that it is not isolationism, it has the common ground of not being the foreign policy for the US.
Even Calvin Coolidge had a warning about the similar but different doctrines of isolationism and non-interventionism.
I’m Not The Only American Who Says This
Even though he ignores the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism, ideologically Independent author Brian Hawkins wrote this grand article very well. He echoes everything wrong with the non-interventionism many of my fellow hardcore libertarians essentially worship. The only other problem is he wrongly buys into the Just War Theory poison of calling War the last resort. Fact of Life is that Defensive war is the only resort for defending self and/or others against the initiation of aggression, terrorism and/or conquest.
America and Britain bilaterally defeated the Nazi Party by launching ruthlessly defensive war against the Nazis the moment they experienced Nazi aggression. Not by preserving defensive war as some kind of last resort, not by thinking that defensive war is not the answer.
Putting aside these minor flaws he rightly praises my fellow libertarians for claiming that trade and diplomacy are inherently morally superior safe-keeping measures to war.
Yaron Brook is another phenomenal speaker on foreign policy, although he is an Objectivist and denounces libertarianism in general. That doesn’t matter to me, what matters to me is he’s a fellow Pro-Defense atheist when it comes to foreign policy and warfare. He comes right out and strongly echoes most of my reasons for passionately opposing Non-interventionism. Which by the way are all my reasons for refusing to call people like Ron Paul and Justin Amash libertarian heroes.
There is even a YouTube video I want you to go watch right now called America Needs a Self-Interested Foreign Policy, Yaron Brook points out absolutely everything you need to hear about how a legit libertarian foreign policy goes. Non-interventionism is appallingly cancer, and the hawkish Altruism of most neoconservatives like George W. Bush is very much equally cancer.
No to Non-interventionism, Yes to Objective Egoism
What exactly I advocate, based on the above authors and on another genius called Elan Journo, is quite the third party. In contrast both to Neoconservative hawkish altruism and Non-interventionist dovish altruism. But how do I explain that in my own words? Here:
- Stop giving free money and free anything else to nations that are not America
- Emphasize free trade and freedom of movement over warfare while still knowing defensive war to be the only resort in stopping foreign aggression
- Stop acting like the US military has any job overseas other than to guard American civilians, including ambassadors and emissaries, with its life
- Abandon alliances and friendships with nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, and others who have absolutely no support for libertarian values
- Don’t sell weapons to any authoritarian regime on the planet for any reason, only Westernized free societies should get to buy weapons from us
- If the US has honestly gathered intelligence saying that some authoritarian regime is planning some terroristic event, ruthlessly destroy that regime
- If the US knows some authoritarian regime that is already a prolific sponsor of terrorism and the US was a victim of that terrorism, destroy that regime
I will be constantly debunking Non-interventionism, but this is all I got for now. Thanks readers,