My fellow Libertarians Need to Stop advocating Anti-Defense, Anti-America mindset as foreign policy
Guys and gals… do not get fooled by the false dichotomy that many of my fellow libertarians promote. That binary black and white thinking that says you either blame America for everything wrong with human nature and want Non-intervention or you buy into the Neocon rhetoric of moral duty to bring democracy to everywhere.
The Style and Role of Government
The very second step libertarians should do as I have done right from my start of being a libertarian in 2010, after rejecting Non-interventionism, is to clarify with everyday America the style and role of US government.
Its not to spread democracy across the world, its not to bribe foreign nations to behave a certain way, and its not to conquer any foreign lands.
What This Has To Do With Foreign Policy
For the realm of foreign policy this refers to defense and security for liberty against empires, movements, and terrorists who murder, or threaten to murder, on a national, regional or global scale for any reason.
To blame any Americans of any sector for the World Trade Center Attacks is to blame victims. And in doing so, libertarians Unconstitutionally slack off on the job of providing common defense of humans.
Trade And Diplomacy AND DEFENSE
Every time I am on Twitter, the United States Libertarian Party spits out this disgusting statement:
- “A humble foreign policy of trade and diplomacy. Wouldn’t that be a nice change?”
And every time they did this I have, twice so far, called them out on the deadly naivety of this rhetoric. Truth is American foreign policy needs to make free trade, diplomatic friendships and freedom of movement the number one priority. Number two priority being an indestructible military that is ready and willing to exert self-defense and/or defense of others.
‘Defensive’ Field of Better Libertarian Foreign Policy
In regards to the defense part of what libertarians need to stand for, there is criteria for libertarians to call for that have nothing to do with Non-interventionism.
If we as libertarians are so into the belief that deadly force can only be used for self-defense and defense of others, then I say we base a brand of foreign interventionism on this belief.
We as libertarians need to say that aggressive foreign intervention is inherently wrong but also say that foreign intervention is morally okay in defense against aggression.
Matter a fact let us ask Webster Dictionary what intervention means.
- To involve one’s self in a conflict in order to sway the outcome in favor of one of the two sides.
There is a big difference we as libertarians must raise awareness of in foreign policy. Intervening in favor of the aggressors Versus Intervening in favor of the victims and/or defenders.
‘Morally Objective’ Field of Better Libertarian Foreign Policy
Thomas Paine planted the seeds for the sort of distinction we as libertarians need to support in place of supporting indiscriminate friendliness with all nations.
That distinction is between free societies, which Paine called Republics; and tyrannies, which Paine called Monarchies.
1776 saw Thomas Paine authoring the book Common Sense, which has this passage.
- The Republics of Europe are all, and we may say always, in peace.
He said monarchies will go to war out of pride while republics will not. Thomas Paine basically said monarchies are far more interested in war of aggression than republics are.
So libertarians should only be advocating ending military alliances with monarchies, and also ending diplomatic friendship with them as well. But we must also be calling for both military alliance and diplomatic friendship with republics.
Perhaps I’ll simply thank you for reading this article,