What I am in Political Engagement for

democrat-republican-1

Nope. I am not in politics to be a sheep to either of these two parties.

I am Advancing a Philosophy from around 2001-03 as my political engagement motives.

Hello. On this day, one day before Halloween, I have decided to talk to the internet now about why I do political engagement. It has nothing to do with the Democrats, the Republicans, or any third parties. Rather my political engagement is up and out there for the sake of promoting an ideology that started in 2003. This ideology has two names, neolibertarianism and republitarianism.

What are the Principles?

Republitarian principles (aka Neolibertarian principles) are five very simple tenets:

  1. The policy that prioritizes civil liberties above all else and only imposes blanket bans on violent crimes, property crimes and fraud is the best approach to addressing social issues and to shaping culture.
  2. The policy that takes the Constitution puristically and adheres to the principles of Western Democracy is the best approach to structuring government.
  3. The policy that implements tax cuts, deregulation, freedom of contract, free banking and ‘supply and demand’ under free enterprise is the best approach to managing the economy.
  4. The policy that builds what Thomas Jefferson called the ‘Empire of Liberty’ across the planet primarily through free trade, but also by other means if needed, is the best approach to foreign relations.
  5. The policy that retains a huge and strong, all-volunteer military and spends highly on the military and is eager to use it to passionately defend and promote liberty is the best approach to national defense.

That’s all of them. Very simple.

Compatibility with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Absolutely NOT! Hillary Clinton is a cultural marxist who wishes to keep everything else in US politics exactly like it is now. Donald Trump is a fiscal Keynesian who wishes to read up on and consistently break all ten rules of the Bill of Rights domestically, while aspiring to do war crimes to terroristic militias’ families abroad.

Both of these ‘people’ are purely and uniquely antithetical to all five principles of being Neolibertarian.

History?

This ideology of republitarian and/or neolibertarian began in 2001 as a reaction among certain US Libertarian Partiers and countless libertarian Independents in America to the September 11th Attacks and to the Bush Doctrine.

Neolibertarianism was and is a September 2001 mirror-image of the USLP’s July 2000 platform that directly opposes the Party’s planks on the Foreign Affairs issues of Diplomatic policy, Military, Economic Policy, and International Relations. This ideology only mirrors the LP’s July 2000 platform’s foreign affairs agenda in regard to supporting free trade and opposing foreign aid.

Then in 2003 neolibertarianism grew as a result of the rise of online news media station “Questions and Observations“, founded by former local police guy turned author-blogger Dale Franks. Even now, QAO turns up 50,000 visitors per month, compared to Mark Humphrys, neolibertarian blogger in Dublin, turning up 170,000 per month (based on contracts of global rankings).

Neolibertarians in Congress?

Yes. Using the site ‘On The Issues‘ along with the Republican Liberty Caucus’s ‘Liberty Index‘, I as an ordinary voter can determine whether a politician ticks all five boxes of neolibertarian principle or not.

Applying the On the Issues criteria to the RLC Liberty Index, a voting record in the ‘Personal Liberty’ category between 60 and 100 means support for the 1st and 2nd principles of republitarian line of thought. As for ‘Economic Liberty’, a voting record with a score between 60 and 100 means endorsement of the 3rd principle of republitarian line of thought.

Furthermore, if someone ‘Supports’ the topics ‘Endorse American Exceptionalism’ and ‘Expand Free Trade’, then they hit all the neolibertarian notes on the 4th principle.

Lastly, if someone ‘Supports’ the topic ‘Expand the Military’ while ‘Opposing’ the topic ‘Avoid Foreign Engagement’, then that person is fully on board with the 5th principle. I will give you this list in a different post.

Conclusion

Thanks everyone for the read here,

~LDA

US Millennials: A Neolibertarian People?

3379683-12

As millennials are today’s adults, I think I’ll point out the Founders of America were Young Adults.

Roughly Six in Ten Millennials Seem to fall right in line with Pro-American, Pro-Defense Libertarianism.

Two years ago, Reason Magazine and Cato Institute did polling opinion of American Millennials in regard to respectively domestic policy and foreign policy. But first let me address the title choice, specifically a word in the title.

So there is this term in the title ‘neolibertarian’, but what does it even mean? Well, allow me to explain.

A neolibertarian is a Moderate Independent who endorses greater economic freedom; meaning low taxes, minimal regulation of commerce, and rule of the world by free trade; and greater personal liberty; meaning no nanny laws, no exceptions to the US Bill of Rights, and the only blanket-ban in place being a ban on violating real people in real life.

However, neolibertarianism leans much closer to reality than mainstream libertarianism leans. Specifically, the neolibertarian judgement of America is to espouse a hyper-critical, but hyper-loving, basically ‘tough love‘ for America as a nation.

Not only this, but also neolibertarian sentiment differs from mainstream libertarian sentiment on foreign policy. While neolibertarians agree with mainstream libertarianism on free trade and free migration; they call for the US military to stay Earth’s strongest military, advocate a balance of using ‘soft power’ and using ‘hard power’ overseas, support humanitarian interventionism, and will always side with Israel regarding the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 to now.

Majority Opinions held by US Millennials

Polling data from all three sources I linked to, and including also data from Pew Research Center, confirms that majority sentiment among US Millennials can be most accurately branded ‘neolibertarian’. Unsurprising, as millennials want big cuts to government power economically and even bigger power cuts culturally, while mostly loving the US and mostly walking the same fine middle ground between neocons and mainstream libertarianism that neolibertarians live to walk. So let’s get to the numbers.

Cultural Policy

An average of Seven in Ten millennials, based on numbers from Reason; favor legalizing online gambling, allowing the recent hobby of vaping to replace the addiction to smoking without government laws, permitting women to wear revealing clothing in public, and letting chefs sell their food via food trucks.

Economic Policy

Reason Magazine numbering confirms that 57% of American millennials want profits and wages to be based on work ethic and not on any opinion on income inequality. Also there is the fact that 64% of millennials prefer free markets over government management of the economy.

American Pride

While it may be true that Seven in Ten millennials believe America has shameful flaws worth apologizing for and fixing, it’s equally true that EIGHT in ten still love the US more than any other nation on Earth.

Foreign Policy

Cato Institute’s particular findings are that two-thirds of my generation (yep, I’m a millennial) endorses use of military force to disrupt or preempt a genocide, which is what humanitarian intervention is. They also find that the two most popular forms of interventionism among millennials are ‘high cooperation, high force’ (30%) and ‘low cooperation, low force’ (also 30%). Furthermore, Pew Research Center finds that significantly more millennials in America side with Israel (43%) than with the Arab League (27%). However, I am having a hard time finding exact numbers for my generation on defense spending so I am forced to apply full population stats to just my generation. This means that I suspect (based on available stats) that 40% of millennials are satisfied with current defense spending, 35% want it to go up and 24% want it to go down. This means three in four millennials oppose defense spending cuts.

Conclusion

I seem to be seeing an intellectual obligation to answer the titular question with the following word: Mostly. Thank you for reading this, says the neolibertarian and millennial that I know I am,

~LDA

Does the United States Economy Need An Economic Bill of Rights?

 

9th-amendment-d

This Amendment was meant to guard freedoms like economic freedoms that are not mentioned in the first 8 amendments.

An Economic Bill of Rights looks like the only way to fix economic regulatory problems.

Ninth Amendment. I have written about the ninth amendment before, and I can write about it again if you want. But as for this post it is meant to be about proposing an Economic Bill of Rights, a set of ten economic liberties that apply universally to every person in US jurisdiction.

My goal with this post and proposal is to demonstrate the economic freedoms that every people should have, starting with the US people.

Amendment One

Government shall make no law banning or regulating any products of clothing, art supply, or other form of self-expression product, nor shall government ban or regulate how workers express themselves off their jobs. In addition, government cannot and will not set limits to what workers and their employers discuss on breaks in break-rooms.

Amendment Two

Every business owner, worker, and other individual shall have the unlimited right to defend their property and their coworkers, themselves and their superiors, from violent intruders. Government absolutely cannot make limits or exceptions to this right.

Amendment Three

No matter the age or income of the individual, he or she inherently has unlimited property rights, including the right to decide which customers to serve, and the right to regard every penny one earns as totally one’s own; no more income taxing.

Amendment Four

Right to Work belongs to everyone that has a job or wants a job, the result is that government is not allowed to require labor union membership nor is government allowed to tell workers what wages they are allowed to want to work for. The other result is workers can aim for whatever intended wages they want as long as they are peaceably competing with each other and accepting their resulting wages as the results of the Four Sciences of Supply And Demand. Similarly, business owners are not to pay their workers according to any more than two factors: One being the Work Ethics of Individual workers, Two being the Four Laws of Supply And Demand.

Amendment Five

People of every income level are not to be denied the right to total individual control of their own retirements. Government needs to handle Social Security on the town level only, not the national level or even state and/or province level. However, government also needs to not impose regulations on how individuals manage their retirement funds, for everyone needs the freedom to decide how to fund their retirement, whether they want donations to their retirements or not.

Amendment Six

Charity has a right to exist very independently of government, and every individual has a right to set up a charity if they would rather build a charity than a business. Government may absolutely not set up how charity owners are allowed to raise money for their respective charities. How charity owners and teammates fund their charities is entirely up to the charities’ teams to have in-team discussions on.

Amendment Seven

Everyone has the right to an education that is either privately owned or locally publicized, which ever aspiring students desire. Freedom of Education, meaning the right to educate one’s own children and/or other people’s children without being regulated by nation-state, belongs to every person of every demographic and every psychographic. Only city-state may set limits to how teachers teach, and even then those limits may only be bans on using physical coercion to discipline misbehaved students.

Amendment Eight

Healthcare is also a basic human right everyone has, meaning the right to choose their own health providers, and the right to provide healthcare for sensible prices according to sciences of supply and demand. Human beings have a right to make their medical decisions without interference by the national government, town governments though may provide a minimalist level of non-coercive assistances like Ambulance drives for advancing this Medicinal Freedom.

Amendment Nine

Freedom of choice here on out applies universally and economically to marriage and contraceptive choices, and to such market competition elements as food brand, beverage brand, toy brand, gaming format, literature, movies, among countless other commodities. Thus it is up to national government to stay out of this freedom of choice while leaving enforcement of this amendment to town governments. Every individual has this right, public and private, rich and poor, so on.

Amendment Ten

When it comes to question of enforcing economic laws against violent crime and against property crime, crimes in these two categories are the only crimes the count as crimes firstly. Secondly, laws against these crimes are to be enforced locally by town police departments and/or town rehabilitation clinics.

Conclusion

I duly hope people can understand what I am trying to promote here with this Bill of Rights idea. Thanks for the read up everyone,

~LDA

Libertarian Cases For or Against Hunting Tyrannical Regimes.

james-madison

James Madison: Can You Even Liberty?

There are legit factual arguments libertarians make, and have made, for or against foreign interventionism.

Hello, I am a simple millennial in Cheshire, Connecticut who votes Libertarian and two events tonight have influenced my decision to bring to the internet these thoughts tonight:

  • The recent foreign policy discussion Austin Petersen had at a University
  • Having recently re-read the Mark Humphrys arguments for or against toppling Assad

So I intellectually thought this up out of these two mentors to my politics and thus I have thought of it this way. How about I pull arguments I have seen or heard historic and current libertarian thinkers write or speak on Both sides of the Pro-Intervention vs Anti-Intervention debate of American Libertarianism. I have a kinda history of being massively on the Pro-Intervention side, but I will publish valid arguments for both sides.

And keep in mind, I am calling arguments in both sides ‘libertarian natured’ as a means of accepting that all of these fit the libertarian nature of 2016 America but some rejected the libertarian label in general. I am also paraphrasing extensively in terms of my choices of word.

Libertarian Natured Arguments For U.S. Foreign Interventions Against Tyranny

  1. “The (libertarian) republics of Europe (and elsewhere) are always, and always will be, in peace. Tyrannies will go to war out of pride in situations wherein republics will not.”
    • Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
  2. “Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but it really boils down to one question. Is it morally healthy to treat human beings as sacrificial objects and rule them with physical aggressions?”
    • Ayn Rand, We The Living, 1936
  3. “I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well created as the US Constitution for both extensive empire and self government by individual human beings.”
    • Thomas Jefferson, passing US Executive Branch to James Madison, 1809
  4. “Any country guilty of despotic outrages lacks any moral entitlements, any claim to national independence or to right of life, and becomes a sociopath.”
    • Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness, 1964
  5. “But of course if France had not intervened in the American Revolution then We The People might still be property of Britain instead of a people of our own, so that’s something to think about.”
    • Austin Petersen, 10 Different Types of Libertarians on YouTube, 2016
  6. “Demolishing tyrannies is morally heroic; wherever done, whenever done”
    • Mark Humphrys, Arguments for Attacking Assad, 2013
  7. “I don’t want to come off as wanting the United States ought to sit idly by and let something as heinous as the Holocaust be carried out.”
    • Gary Johnson, to The Weekly Standard, 2011
  8. “You shouldn’t have a contract such as military alliance to be eager to defend your friends if they are truly your honest friends.”
    • Kyle Perkins (me), this article, 2016
  9. “All humans are equals to the rule of law, and all humans are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”
    • Thomas Jefferson, US Declaration of Independence, 1776
  10. “BUT! If a foreign tyranny is threatening the United States with future attack, then destroy that threat on its soil, be willing to militarily intervene.”
    • Yaron Brook, America Needs A Self-Interested Foreign Policy on YouTube, 2012

Libertarian Natured Arguments Against U.S. Foreign Interventions Against Tyranny

  1. “The United States needs Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with all nations, and must make alliances with none.”
    • Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
  2. “We must consider foreign alliances as temporary luxuries and we must abandon allies who later prove to be imminent threats to us.”
    • George Washington, First Farewell Address, 1792
  3. “Every time we topple secular governments in the Middle East, we see opportunity for the Salafi movement to gain territory for its empire.”
    • Rand Paul, his thoughts on the Iraq War, 2015
  4. “There is the Principle of Non-interventionism, which America must at least work its way towards practicing.”
    • Austin Petersen, North Korea and Libertarian Foreign Policy, 2016
  5. “Don’t go to wars just to spread Democracy, bring home any individual troop that is not overseas to defend the individual rights of Americans.”
    • Yaron Brook, America Needs A Self-Interested Foreign Policy on YouTube, 2012
  6. “The Cold War ended three years before I was born, so waging war on socialist states is not the right way to address them anymore.”
    • Kyle Perkins (me again), this article, 2016

Conclusion

See, even I managed to contribute to both sides of US libertarianism’s foreign policy debate. I can see facts-over-feelings thinking on both sides. Thanks for reading,

~LDA

Exactly Why Tyrannies Can Never Be Taken As Friends or As Allies

image

South Korean Buddhist monks protest the founding of a South Korean anti-missile system called THAAD.

China Threatening South Korea Confirms the United States Should Not Be Friendly With or Even Negotiate with Tyrannical Societies.

Just before doing this post I looked into how my last post calling for US Libertarian Party reform on foreign policy is doing. Then I get distracted by a story of China threatening South Korea with War of Aggression if South Korea plants a defense program called THAAD.

I am only just stumbling upon this story, and I must say that I am not surprised at all that mainland China, a tyrannical society, is making threats against not one but two free societies. The United States and South Korea. But I will point out that its evident that South Korea is propping up THAAD as a means to motivate North Korea to walk back on its historic and recent threats to South Korea.

What is the THAAD Anyway?

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. Yeah, it is an acronym for exactly that. This may have been an issue for at least a month but I certainly can bring plenty of consistent pro-liberty ethics to the table.

Belligerence between the two Koreas began with the founding of the North Korean governing ideology, Juche. This ideology is apparently so barbaric that even Hwang Jang-Yop, the person who created it, had to flee North Korea in 1997 because it motivated the North Korean regime to target him. He describes it as, and I am paraphrasing here, a “propaganda tool for North Korea to manipulate South Koreans into tyrannical thinking”.

I duly believe this should instinctually give US libertarians the perfect idea which Korea is inherently in the right and which Korea is inherently in the wrong. I do not think it does, but I do think it should. So let me just tell the rest of registered USLP voters around me:

  • South Korea is the free society who’s always in the right
  • North Korea is the tyrannical society who’s always in the wrong

The Topic At Hand

China is also a tyrannical society, from having rock-bottom levels of economic freedom to having almost no personal liberty. Naturally this means China is a nation who ethically and morally can claim no rights. So I ask my fellow American libertarians who share my status of being registered to vote as Libertarian. Do you think it is moral for any regime on the planet to rule its people as endlessly-working robots and/or sacrificial livestock?

We currently have a Statism-advancing policy of diplomacy to both North Korea and China. And in both cases diplomacy only encourages their belligerence. However, I do not think war on these two or on any socialist states is needed at all, to me any need for war against socialist states ended when the Cold War did in 1991, three years before my life began (I was born in 5/6/1994).

What We Ought To Do

Knowing that diplomacy only solicits aggression from these two big-government statist societies, and knowing that war on them is not a necessity because the Cold War is totally OVER, what should we do to these two? And to other socialist tyrannies?

Basically, I advocate what Juche and Maoist and other socialistic tyrannies fear more than anything else. I want a total and unconditional freezing of government assets of all socialist regimes, and as far as the Russia vs Ukraine status is concerned this applies to that to. I want a combo of totally freezing these countries’ governments’ assets with opening trade with the populations of these countries. It would be a slow process but you would still see these socialist governments collapse and their societies very gradually rebuilding as free societies without even a one-second thought of invasion, occupation, or nation-building.

Conclusion

This is honestly all I got on this issue. Good day to all you readers,

~LDA

To Topple the Democrat-Republican Duopoly of America, the US Libertarian Party Needs to Drastically Change Its Foreign Policy Agenda.

demopublican

Hey US Libertarian Party, want to get rid of the morbid system mocked by this image? Then come over to reality on foreign policy and national self-assessment!

Foreign Policy and National Self-Love are two things the US Libertarian Party needs major reform on.

I am happy to be registered to vote as a Libertarian Partier, and I am happy to score an 86 with how libertarian I am on both the Libertarian Purity Test and the iSideWith self-assessment quiz.

However, the US Libertarian Party and broader libertarian movement absolutely disgust me to the point of insanity on foreign policy. Mainstream libertarian opinion wrongly merges a severely paranoid Anti-Americanism with a naive Pacifism. A pacifism that truly believes that America will be best off if it just retreats from everywhere militarily and talks to the world through diplomacy alone.

No, I am not trying to abolish the LP, I would never allow that to happen. I know I would very much rather move to another Earth-like planet than see the LP dissolved.

Who Should the United States Respect Overseas?

Only other free societies. True friends will respect each other’s independences while also being eager to defend each other without needing such a contract as a military alliance.

Unilateralism dramatically more often demolishes other free societies’ respects for America than builds, but the LP should absolutely not promote negotiation and diplomacy with tyrannies. Instead the LP should be promoting the idea of America negotiating multilaterally with other free societies on solutions to problems caused by tyrannies.

The United Nations is an abysmal example of a multilateralism club, and the Libertarian Party is totally right to want the US to evict the UN from our dimension. However, the US Libertarian Party should absolutely not be opposing clubs like OECD and NATO, which aside from Turkey consist of nothing but free societies.

In fact, Pew Research Center finds that 77% of American voters find NATO and OECD friendships to be beneficial.

Differentiate Which Foreign Regimes are Libertarian and which ones are Statist

When this country was having its Declaration of Independence into effect in 1776, Thomas Paine had got to publishing the non-fiction book Common Sense. In this book, he noted that tyrannies will go to war out of pride in situations wherein free societies will not. He also made other notes about how peaceful free societies are as a general rule.

Perhaps my favorite example to name off is Israel. Out of all of the entire Greater Middle East, Israel is the only free society. Turkey was a free society from the start of the Digital Age to the time Erdogan took power, whereas Israel has remained a free society from its 1947 founding year to now. Arab League members, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan will go to war out of pride in situations in which Israel (and recently Tunisia) will not, by the logic of US Founding Father Thomas Paine. 54% of Americans agree with this logic-based conclusion, only 19% would disagree, so the LP needs to stop catering to the 19% and get on board with the 54% instead.

Stronger U.S. Military Means More World Peace

There is plenty of historic facts of life to point out in regard to the US military’s presence abroad being mandatory to preserving a world wherein free trade is the default tool of any free society’s foreign policy.

Remorsefully, mainstream libertarian opinion ignores these particular facts of life, in favor of impulsive and venomously feelings-obsessed calls for all troops to come home from all places. Most libertarians around this one (me) even have the naivety to call for the US military to be downsized.

When the US Military Shrinks and/or foreign Tyrannies Get Respected, Earth Gets Deadlier for Millennials Like Me to Live On

Well, this is going to be quite the element for me to explain. So basically you have the two Koreas, right? And historically the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 ended in stalemate, on one hand. But on the other hand, 28,000 US troops being stationed in South Korea has resulted in North Korea having lost interest in annexing South Korea. Therefore South Korea has emerged into a fellow free society that’s got more economic freedom with more personal liberty than most of the world around it.

US military presence overseas also allows the US military to respond in short order whenever a tyranny is propping a menace. Stationing US troops in our OECD friends’ lands (Israeli and Turkish land) allowed the US military to defeat the Saddam Hussein regime after a speedy travel in both Iraq Wars. To have to fly US troops over from US soil would have required our 500 MPH troop carrier planes to fly 7000 miles and take 840 minutes to get there. That’s compared to flying 800 miles in 96 minutes and 600 miles in 82 minutes from Turkey and Israel, respectively.

Grant you, America or any other free society should only use war for Self-Defense and Defense of Others and never as the aggressor. But when a tyranny is sponsoring terrorism or conducting genocide, US troops need to be stationed in the geographically closest free society to that tyranny. This way US troops will be ready to defeat that tyrannical regime very quickly.

Define US National Interests?

A National Interest is defined as a country’s goals and ambitions in the world, wether economic, cultural or military. I look at US Libertarian Party rhetoric echoing Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with foreign countries and alliance with none’. And every time I do I get the impression that the USLP defines US national interests economically as free trade, culturally as honest friendships, and militarily as abstinence from alliances. So as far as I am concerned the US Libertarian Party already knows what US National Interests are.

But very regrettably, the Libertarian Party does nothing to advocate defense of these Jeffersonian-defined Interests. Instead the USLP promotes Far-left, Anti-Americanism and hatred of doing anything visibly mandatory for defending these Jeffersonian Interests.

What the USLP should do is accept the painful reality that War is frequently the only answer to attacks on the US interests of “Peace, Commerce & Honest Friendships but No Alliances”. While also reminding the American People that American military must only ever wage war to defeat tyrannies who attack the US interests of free trade and friendships with other free societies. Or threaten said interests with future attack. Regime Change, Democracy Promotion and Cultural Imperialism endanger America by blinding America to its own cultural, economic and military goals in the world. This is the argument the USLP should be making against these three behaviors, not that they harm enemy governed citizenry, not that they put foreigners at risk of senseless death. There should not be indiscriminate world policing or nation building.

Conclusion

This was twice as long as I wanted it to be, but I do hope I got the idea across. Thanks for reading,

~LDA

You Would Be Amazed How Much Philosophical Diversity There Is In Libertarianism On Foreign Policy

 

shutterstock_262713128

There Is Drastically More Philosophical Thought to Libertarian Foreign Policy than purist Nonintervention.

What up, internet? I am a libertarian who wants the world, mainly my country the United States, to know how truly diverse foreign policy thinking is in Libertarianism in America in 2016. There is massive intellectual diversity among us when it comes to foreign policy. Some of us embrace Nonintervention, some of us like me do not. Some of us endorse Just War Doctrine, some of us like me do not. Some of us want to downsize the US military, some of us like me want to upsize it. Some of us like me are ardently Pro-Israel, some of us are indifferent to Israel.

History of U.S. Libertarian Perspectives

United States Libertarian agendas on foreign policy first began taking their Digital Age levels of intellectual diversity in 1971 and 1973 with the creations of the US Libertarian Party and Libertarian Defense Caucus, respectively.

This was about a decade after Ayn Rand had risen to prominence through inventing a similar but different movement to US Libertarianism: Objectivism. The result was the divide of libertarians between Just War Doctrine and Ayn Rand Doctrine aka Objectivist Doctrine. Which she (Ayn Rand) based upon the legal theory of…

  • Right of Self-Defense and Defense of Others.

With the emergence of the Carter Doctrine on January 23rd, 1980; US libertarians split into those who generally supported the Carter Doctrine and those who generally opposed it. Thus began the divide between libertarian doves and libertarian hawks. A divide that started with a split between libertarian support for Containment policy and libertarian opposition to containment.

Next came the Reagan Doctrine and its inspiration for American libertarians to debate each other over the validity of Rollback in US foreign policy. 1983 is when this happened to US libertarian perspectives on foreign policy, so now you had, in total, three different sentiments. From 1983 to 1989 these libertarian foreign policy psychographics were The Just War Doctrinaires, the Carter Doctrinaires, and the Reagan Doctrinaires.

Humanitarian Interventionism become trendy among those of US libertarians who rejected the Just War Doctrine mainstay in favor of Bill Clinton’s the Clinton Doctrine in the 1990’s decade. This really was a doctrine of nothing but Anti-Genocide actions overseas.

Opening decade of the Digital Age, 2000-2009, saw the emergence of the Bush Doctrinaires in US libertarianism in 2001 as a result of the September 11th Attacks. This was mainly a foreign policy doctrine of Preventive War and Democracy Promotion.

And due to the Obama Doctrine having no clear agenda, in preach or in practice, I cannot say if there are any ‘Obama Doctrinaires’ in American libertarianism.

Lastly America saw the revival of two ideological Doctrines in US Libertarianism, both in the libertarian half of the Tea Party movement in 2011.

One, the Jeffersonian Democracy Doctrine, was about spreading freedom to the world and defending the US almost entirely by economically coercive means like embargoing. Jeffersonian Democracy Doctrine was also about wanting honest friendships but abstaining from any alliances.

The other, Jacksonian Democracy Doctrine, was about merging purist Nonintervention-until-attacked with American Nationalism and a love for free trade and minimally-regulated immigration as well. When the US is attacked, Jacksonian Democracy Doctrinaires of US libertarians are the most likely US libertarians to favor total war for the attacker’s unconditional surrender.

Summary of Perspectives

Here in the Digital Age, there are innumerable US libertarian perspectives on foreign policy. The mainstream perspective is what I’ll call the Just War Doctrinaires, Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are the best samples I can name.

Secondarily there are quite a few Non-mainstream psychographics.

There’s the Jacksonian Democracy people, the Jeffersonian Democracy people, and the Ayn Rand Objectivism people. But there’s also the Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Doctrinaires.

Where do I put myself? Honestly, I identify with the Objectivist foreign policy faction of US libertarianism. Why so?

Mainly because of all the foreign policy academics I have read from, the top two sanest foreign policy thinkers influencing US libertarianism are Yaron Brook and Elan Journo. Even though they in no way identify as libertarians, Dr. Brook and Mr. Journo have the most Digital Age compatible Foreign Policy Doctrine of anything I named off in the History segment above.

Like Brook and Journo, I also believe the solution to the belligerence of Socialist States to be embargo and not war. Like these two, I also believe that it is the Theocratic tyrannies of the Greater Middle East who are the current warring enemy of Western Culture. Like these two, I also endorse a defense policy of not setting limits to how a wounded free society can defend or avenge itself against assault by a tyranny. I take pretty much all of my foreign policy viewpoints from their intellectual think tank, the Ayn Rand Institute.

What does this mean? It means I believe in a foreign policy of defensive posture and free trade. I endorse a US foreign policy that serves only to defend life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Granted the ARI talks of Self-Defense only, but as I am a secular humanist in my atheistic morality choice I interpret that as defending humanity’s individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Rather than only defending Americans’ individual rights to those three things. I tend to cite the US Declaration of Independence line promoting Humanism (‘all humans are created equal’) as justification for broadening that into defending human individuals from barbaric coercions, not just American individuals. I tend to say the US has a right to decide on its own how to defend these individual rights, and that all other free societies have this right as well.

Conclusion

I am not someone who adheres to neocon foreign policy, totally not. I simply believe that the US needs a foreign policy that serves to defend individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as though all humans are created equal (not literally created, though). I do not believe in policing the world, I do not believe in nation building. I do support reaching out diplomatically to other free societies, and compromising with other free societies, but I will never support diplomacy with despotic cesspits. Thanks readers,

~LDA