Explaining My Political Identity

bios-hayek01

Friedrich Hayek – a very fine economist!

I do not exactly fit in 100% with either US political party in particular.

Hello again world. Today I am going to fashion a writing about how I describe myself politically, mainly for a site I recommend called Minds, which is in beta at the time of me doing this.

If I were to keep myself brief on where I sit in each major philosophy in America from now until my passing, I’d call myself a cultural liberal and a fiscal conservative. In other words, I’d call myself a libertarian but only in the sense of a pragmatic & beltway libertarian and/or neolibertarian. Please allow me to define these terms.

Cultural Liberal

  • A human being who believes very strongly in freedom from cultural norms, and believes the only unlisted social rules in place should be rules against fraud, against property crimes and against violent crimes.

Fiscal Conservative

  • A human being who very strongly supports balancing budgets, reversing deficits into surpluses, keeping taxation minimalist, and keeping government Non-defense budgets minimalist. Fiscal conservatives like me also favor opening free trade and keeping market regulation minimalist. And most, myself proudly included, endorse privatization of social institutions like marriage and others.

Pragmatic & Beltway Libertarian

  • A fiscally conservative and culturally liberal person who wants to stick to cultural liberalisms and fiscal conservatisms that are marketable. And the reason ‘beltway’ libertarian is a synonym for ‘pragmatic’ libertarian is because the kind of libertarian I am wants to stick to culturally liberal reforms and fiscally conservative reforms that are electable.

Neolibertarian

  • A pragmatic & beltway libertarian who desires a strong military capability and supports remarkably ruthless use of that military for Self-Defense and Defense of Others. Furthermore, a neolibertarian like me is someone who favors a foreign policy of unilateral free trade and of openly playing favorites with free societies. Our support for use of the military for Self-Defense and Defense of Others includes endorsement of preventive strikes. And in terms of stopping a genocide, preventive strike means a free society uses its military to stop a genocide on its very first day of being carried out, long before it reaches 1% of its target.

Democrat, Republican, or Independent?

Independent voter. Without a single doubt.

Conclusion

Now hopefully people over at Minds know what I am like politically. Thanks,

~LDA

The Liberty Doctrine: A Foreign Policy and Defense Policy for libertarians

judge-2-6-1897

I’d call myself a Jefferson libertarian for reasons I will explain in this article.

Libertarians lack cohesion on national security due to our own lacking of a Doctrine.

And so as a radically small-government libertarian, I notice about my own political psychographic a lack of national defense coherency.

I suspect this is due to our lack of a Doctrine. Almost every executive branch since the James Monroe executive has had a defensive posturing Doctrine of one kind or another. Thus I think it is only appropriate for us as libertarians to create a doctrine that reflects both the libertarian principles of Jeffersonian Democracy’s foreign policy, and the predicaments we face in the Digital Age.

Pillars

I will attempt to make pillars in sentence form without paraphrasing or copying too much. So here is my proposal, or rather my list of proposals for a Doctrine, for the US Liberty movement.

  1. Abolish trade barriers, tariffs, and corporatist elements without caring what country the barriers, the tariffs and the corporatism belong to.
  2. Treat both factions of the Salafi movement and nations where Sharia applies in full as one enemy, due to the Salafis’ desire to make Sharia apply in full to the whole planet.
  3. Stop jihads, as in genocides & holocausts by the Salafis, on their very first days of taking place.
  4. Obligate the government to avoid military alliances while obligating it to make true friendships via diplomacy and only letting government wage war to directly defend innocent people from Salafi violence.

Yeah, it is rather clear what I am calling for in the way of libertarian Doctrine of foreign policy and libertarian defense policy. Unilateral Free Trade; Ending Nations Who Adopt Salafism In Full; Preventive Anti-jihads; Basic Textbook Nonintervention.

Unilateral Free Trade

The very essence of libertarianism’s foreign policy is not trade deals, not border walls, but instinctive, unilateral free trade. Which means America’s number one concern in foreign policy (we’ll get to defense policy later) should be unilaterally setting up total free trade as pushed for by economists Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith and Milton Friedman as the entire planet’s trade policy.

Not only was America founded on libertarian values like economic freedom, civil liberty and decentralized republic; but also it is the US military that has been working with US diplomats for seven decades so far in unilaterally propping up free trade. And of course, this is the case in US relations with a majority of foreign countries. Objectivist movement founder Ayn Rand knew the moral necessity of America making unilateral free trade its favorite thing to act on in foreign & defense policy, to; except she described it as “the essence of Capitalist foreign policy.” A very tiny nitpick, I know.

Ending Nations Who Adopt Sharia In Full

Now, what’s this doing on the list of pillars? What is Sharia, and what does it have to do with the Salafi movement? What is this ‘Salafi movement’ thing anyway?

All valid questions. Let me answer these questions in reverse order to the order I listed them in.

  1. The Salafi movement is a bombastically authoritarian, and puritanically theocratic movement that seeks to turn our entire planet into a religious dictatorship based on an unhealthily political interpretation of an organized religion called Islam.
  2. Sharia is a legal system of laws and regulations found in the Islamic holy book, which is called the Koran, and it is the most authoritarian legal system ever made by people. The Salafi movement wants to create a planet that is based in nothing but Sharia.
  3. I made this pillar the number two pillar of my “Liberty Doctrine” thing because the Salafis are to the Digital Age as the Nazis were to World War Two and as Communism was to the Cold War era. In other words, the nations who adopt Sharia in full are aiding the Salafis by doing so, and are therefore posing a new threat to the American People.

All one has to do is look up “Application of Sharia by Country” and they will know exactly which countries are the current enemies of the United States. On Wikipedia for example, the map has our current biggest enemies marked in Purple.

And as Ayn Rand Institute CEO Yaron Brook duly notes,

  • “Without logistical and spiritual support by these Islamic Theocracies, the Salafi movement cause would be a hopeless and discredited one.”

Preventive Anti-Jihads

So let me dig into what I mean by this before I dig into why it is legit part of libertarian military policy in the Digital Age.

But let’s define our terms first:

  • Preventive action refers to action undertaken to defense against predicted future aggression.
  • Due to Jihad being holy war waged for Sharia, that makes Anti-Jihad to be war – holy or secular – waged against Sharia.

The Salafi movement seems to be mostly relying on genocide to carry out their desired world conquest. And history is full of examples of ignoring genocides for many years each to lead to millions of lives lost and in these times a victory for the Salafis.

Take the deadliest in history, for example: The Nazi Holocaust 1939 to 1945. This atrocity killed 11 million innocent people across Europe, meaning 2 million dead every year, therefore 5000 dead every day. Early destruction of Nazi Germany, meaning bringing out retribution on the Nazis for the Holocaust on Day One, mathematically would have saved 10,995,000 lives across Europe.

Nowadays, if a Salafi regime is massacring its own at such a rate, it is likely that regime is targeting Christians, Jews, Atheists and Deists. Let’s say Iran decided it was going to spend however long murdering every atheist and deist in that country, for example. There are about 266,000 nonreligious people in Iran, who’s atheist and who’s deist is known only in Iran, I think. To carry out such an atrocity in two years would cost 370 innocent human beings’ lives, so a Day-One retaliation against Iran for such an atrocity would prevent 265,630 further innocent lives from being wasted.

Basic Textbook Nonintervention

Don’t go to war unless it is to save innocent lives long-term, I say. Also I say we ought to refrain from doing military alliances in order to focus on economic friendships like we have through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Lastly I believe that human rights activist groups and other NON-government entities should be able to intervene overseas but that Government should not intervene overseas, except in matters of Self Defense and Defense of Others.

According to Wikipedia, this is Non-interventionism, or as I specify it “Basic Textbook Nonintervention”. This I specify in order to oppose the puritanical Just War Theory nonsense that mainstream libertarian narrative currently passes off as the only kind of Nonintervention ever possible.

The job of spreading freedom across the globe, or ‘Empire of Liberty’, belongs not the American government but rather to the American markets and individuals. This is perhaps the main way Nonintervention differs from Isolationism, which calls for tougher border controls than is needed (disease check, security check, done) and opposes free trade of any kind. Nonintervention also differs from Isolationism in that isolationism demands private sector entities to not be allowed to do anything about any foreign troubles at all.

Interpreting Nonintervention by all of its differences from isolationism is mandatory to advancing the ideal of nonintervention.

Conclusion

I have taken four ideas, three from pragmatism and one from American libertarianism, and meshed them into a Doctrine. Thanks for reading,

~LDA

Cozying Up To Nonintervention on Thanksgiving Holiday

libertarian-defense-atheist

I am so happy to learn that nonintervention does not inherently require one to espouse Just War Theory or Pacifism!

Non-interventionist foreign policy turns out to be both government-only and wholly separate from defense policy.

Happy Thanksgiving, internet! Right just now I am thankful to learn that I was wrong all along about whether nonintervention has any compatibility with a proven military policy aka defense policy. Honestly, I have to dedicate this post to my US political hero, Austin Petersen. He ran the one and only morally winning campaign in the entire Libertarian Party in 2016 and who intensified my love for the US Constitution and civil liberties and economic rights the best any candidate could. Austin also opened me to the idea that many Nonintervention types, himself included, recognize the moral necessity of rejecting pacifist defense policy.

Foreign Policy vs Defense Policy

The difference between foreign policy and defense policy is something I must briefly apologize for presenting as two ‘sides’ of foreign policy.

Foreign Policy

  • The policy of an independent nation in its interaction with other independent nations

Defense Policy (aka military policy)

  • The policy of an independent nation in its own national security and its own military

Yeah, these are distinct political policy categories. And these two happen to be almost all the politics I ever talk about. I have other interests like Lord of the Rings, dinosaurs, American and/or Irish whiskey (I’m 22 and will be 23 on May 6th of next year, so basically 2017), and many others. But when I have politics on mind, almost all the political issues I think about are on foreign policy and defense policy.

What exactly is Nonintervention policy?

Nonintervention is a foreign policy that declares one’s government should not make military alliances but should make friendships via diplomacy and/or trade, and should not wage any wars that are not matters of the right of defense.

For some examples, do not wage war of aggression and also do not sponsor terrorism. Also don’t attack a tyranny that has neither done actual violence against you nor made threat of violence against you.

Come to think of it, all along I have had a specific aspect Nonintervention as one of my foreign policy beliefs; this one.

  • The crux of United States libertarian foreign policy is unilateral free trade, and making friendships via diplomacy with the United States’ fellow Western Democracies.

But on the other hand, I can happily Thanks-give to Austin Petersen for introducing me to a principle of Nonintervention I can get behind instantly. So let’s talk what kind of Defense Policy is best for making libertarian Nonintervention electable.

Credible Defense/Military Policy

Libertarians have a really big problem making nonintervention electable and marketable. This is entirely because of radically pacifist and radically Just War Theorists acting up as terrifying and creepy ideologues. So how exactly do we as a movement make non-intervention electable?

Well, we start by telling these ideologues NO on everything they say. And next we refrain from ever shutting down anything that’s not at least as close to pacifism as Just War Theory by demonizing to those who propose alternative defense policies as ‘statist’, ‘neocon’, ‘warmonger’, ‘imperialist’, ‘dictator’, ‘nation-building fanatic’, or any of those other stupid labels those repulsive ideologues have.

Then we take a precursory look not just at American self-defense history (WW2 and earlier) but also at the US Constitution’s Preamble; in order to figure out what the US federal government’s official jobs are.

And of course this kind of researching will reveal two things for sure. Thing one is that the Preamble explicitly states that the US government’s jobs are:

  • Establish Justice for the American People
  • Insure Domestic Tranquility for the American People
  • Promote the General well-being of the American People
  • Provide Common Defense for the American People
  • Secure Economic Liberty and Civil Liberty for the American people

And thing two is that doing these jobs on a military policy level historically required the US government to be absolutely, totally ruthless in defeating enemies of the American People. Doing its five full-time jobs properly required the US military during every single known America-involving war to do severely devastating annihilation to the initial aggressor.

Here in the digital age, acting rightly for US defense policy requires the sixteen US intel agencies to confirm with the Legislative Branch as to whether the tyranny in question poses a threat or not.

Conclusion

That’s what I got here for my revelation on Thanksgiving Day. Thanks readers,

~LDA

Just War Theory versus Libertarian Foreign Policy

Iraq War Name

We are doing our honorable lads here a severe dishonor by teaching them to espouse Just War Doctrine.

Many libertarians often think Just War Theory is the only moral or libertarian Foreign Policy.

But these mainstream libertarianism types are totally wrong about that, in every sense. Histories of major libertarian republics, at least between 1850 and now, tells us that is patently false. Just War Theory imposes lots of restrictions on how a free society is allowed to conduct itself on a foreign policy level.

Explaining Just War Theory

Basically it all of its criteria that make Just War Theory not libertarian.

Just Cause

This is one claiming that war is not allowed to be for direct self-defense and has to be a matter of protecting life. Even a non-interventionist must admit the incompatibility.

Comparative Justice

This one says war is only justice if one entity has suffered more violence than another, which libertarians on both sides of the ‘Empire of Liberty vs Non-intervention’ spectrum should theoretically agree is bad because it leaves wiggle room for tyrants.

Competent Authority

This one says only a constitutionally endowed authority is allowed to declare war. Unlike almost all other Just War Theory criteria, this is the only one with American Constitutional placement. Article One Section Eight Clause Eleven.

Right Intention

This criterion says war can only be used to ‘just causes’, and directly contradicts ‘Just Cause’ by claiming direct self-defense to be a ‘Right Intention’.

Probability of Success

This criterion demands the free society to just appease its tyrant attacker if any samples of total war are required for protecting the free society’s people, which to me spells tyranny.

Last Resort

Basically this one says to appease your enemy countless different ways and to expect a different outcome every time. You know, the behavior Einstein called ‘insanity’.

Proportionality

Another criterion has this name, but this one specifies about keeping the harm done to the enemy lesser than or equal to the harm done by the enemy. Which is basically code for ‘wartime appeasement’.

Distinction

The self-defending free society under this criterion is forced to spare enemy troops who act like they are giving up on hurting the defender’s people. Also the defender’s forced to not target any of the enemy government’s non-military elements.

Proportionality

Just War Theory claims that harm to enemy civilians needs to be less than or equal to harm to enemy military, and that includes enemy non-military employed by enemy government.

Military Necessity

While this criterion feels good for asserting that the intention needs to defeat the enemy government, it ruins its validity by claiming that the only enemy government entities that can be targeted are obvious militants.

Fairly Treat POWs

Prisoners of War is what POW is, and this one is dumb because once a tyranny has attacked or threatened a free society’s people, that free society has a job to defend in a Take No Prisoners manner.

No Malum in Se

Malum in se for those who don’t know is Latin for ‘inherently wrong’, and the only way this truly needs to apply to a free society defending its people is to prohibit the free society’s military from doing any form of sexual warfare. That is it, nothing else.

Legit Libertarian Foreign Policy

Crux of foreign policy

If anyone is curious, the crux of a legit Libertarian Foreign Policy has nothing to do with warfare of any kind, predictably. But it has nothing to do with any level of pacifism either, instead it’s all about Unilateral Free Trade.

Free trade, in unilateral context, means reducing every country’s border controls to Ellis Island style medical and security checks. Unilateral free trade means allowing one’s population to open free trade with an oppressed foreign population behind that country’s oppressor government’s back. Unilateral free trade means allowing one’s own people to take their economic rights to freedom of contract and others with them to apply overseas. Unilateral free trade means demolishing protectionism and abolishing tariffs for all sides of all trades, especially if tyrannical governments disapprove.

Warfare in foreign policy

Morally there is no such thing as national sovereignty for tyrannies. Only Minarchist societies, culturally Western Democracies, & Classically liberal Republics can claim national sovereignty as a right.

Tyrannies are cancers on the world according to their behavior patterns. Any Minarchist regime has an option to annihilate the government and military of any Totalitarian regime, not a duty.

Some regimes, like socialist tyrannies nowadays, are regimes we do not need to declare war on due to the fact that war on them stopped being a legit option after the Cold War. Instead there is a more fiscally affordable option to dealing with such regimes in the Digital Age: Letters of Marque and Reprisal. For example, I call for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal against North Korea’s Kim dynasty, as they are too bellicose and belligerent for mutual respect between nations.

But others, like the Jihad-sponsoring Islamic States, are the regimes that pose real enough threats to America and other Western Democracies to warrant formal declarations of war by Western Democracies’ respective Legislative Branches.

Regarding 9/11 for example, America lost 3000 of its sweetest, gentlest human beings to those States sponsoring that attack. Thus America morally needs to avenge those human beings by all means, from Taking No Prisoners to doing countless Firestorms to repeating the Savannah Campaign to granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal against these States’ entire governments & militaries.

Diplomacy in foreign policy

True libertarians; you’ve got to advocate for the U.S. way of diplomacy to openly play favorites with other free societies, and to make honest friendship with them all. You also need to oppose any effort to negotiate with tyrannical societies, for that’s grievous misuse of diplomacy.

True libertarians; you’ve got to advocate for America’s diplomacy to double down on reserving respect for foreign nations’ independences for just America’s fellow free societies.

Conclusion

There. Now it’s clear libertarian foreign policy and just war theory are not synonyms. Thank you all,

~LDA

What do you mean Libertarian Neocons?

jefferson-sec-of-state

I dedicate this responsive article to Thomas Jefferson, who gave us Empire of Liberty and the Declaration of Independence.

Mother Jones Magazine comes off to me as stereotyping my kind of libertarian, the Neolibertarians.

Hello. I am an Irish atheist center-right secular liberal who wants to talk to you today about an article from probably half a decade ago in Mother Jones Magazine.

Specifically, this portion of an article they wrote some time ago, a portion they call Libertarian Theology. I want to home in on this part though:

what

Most of us neolibertarians do Not identify as “libertarian neocon”, MotherJones! And most of us nowadays believe the Iraq War was mostly a mistake and a bad idea. I for example believe that the initial destroying of Saddam’s regime was heroic but that the eight-year Democracy Crusade afterward was all about totally bad ideas.

Yes, that’s right! This whole article is bringing up foreign and defense policy differences within the neolibertarian faction of America’s libertarian movement!

We neolibertarians are the Anti-Just-War-Theory wing of libertarianism in America.

What is Just War Theory? It is basically a nearly-pacifistic national security doctrine that demands a society severely limit its eagerness to defend itself.

Most libertarians are Just War Theorists and/or pacifists, basically just career diplomats. But not neolibertarians, no. We tend to look into alternative theories. And although Neoconservatism is not on the alternative theories list, there are still some libertarian neocons here and there.

For example, one of my fellow Libertarian Defense Caucus people, the National Co-chair he is, calls himself a ‘libertarian realist’. I am not naming names as I do not intend to misrepresent any of my fellow Libertarian Defense Campers.

Then there seem to be ‘libertarian objectivists’, people who look solely to Ayn Rand Institute authors like Elan Journo for foreign policy advise.

Next we come to ‘libertarian idealists’, people who believe in spreading libertarian ideals as official foreign policy.

And of course some neolibertarians can be called ‘libertarian consequentialists’, people who believe that the intention (direct national self-defense) justifies the methods (even if those methods contradict nearly all just war theory pillars).

Lastly we come to the group I call myself one of but only in the sense of basic dictionary definitions of the two words. ‘Libertarian militarists’, classically liberal types who desire a strong military capability and favor ruthless use of it to defend and promote national interests. If you don’t know what a national interest is then…

  • A national interest is one of a country’s cultural, defensive and/or economic goals.

I personally tend to invoke the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution to clearly and simply define what U.S. national interests are. Not sure if I am able to speak for other libertarian militarists though.

Conclusion

Thus the main differences between individual neolibertarians lie within very specific issues. But the thing we all agree on is being the world’s go-to Pro-Defense, Pro-America libertarianism. Thanks for reading this,

~LDA

How to Propose Libertarian Policies without Ignoring Reality.

3379683-12

Yeah, none of these guys created America by being ideologues and philosophical gatekeepers. Sorry fellow libertarians that’s just the truth.

Libertarians have infinite trouble getting libertarian ideals normalized, here’s how to fix that.

Ultimately, libertarianism currently subjects itself to an identity crisis domestically, and relies extensively on emotion, dogma, and ideological gatekeeping to spread the ideals.

Furthermore, we as a movement have no clear affirmation as to whether we are descendants of classical liberalism or descendants of radical anarchism or descendants of Christian conservatism or descendants of far left Progressivism.

Worst of all, at least to me, the libertarian movement in America espouses and openly tries to scare anyone who wears the ‘libertarian’ label into espousing a severely suicidal foreign policy. One that lethally denies or trivializes real threats to U.S. Constitutional interests in justice, tranquility, well-being and liberty for all of the American People. One that also demands censorship of information about the logistical mandate that U.S. military presence overseas will never stop being to keep free trade and free migration the global norm.

So here I am about to propose the ways to fix these problems.

Scientific Method, History Lessons, Easy-going Humor and Healthy Empathizing

Here I have listed four behaviors we as libertarians need to engage in; two being tools, and the other two being actual behaviors. The ultra-reliance on rhetoric, radicalism, emotional arguments, ideological gatekeeping and being ideologues needs to STOP.

First let us examine Scientific Method. Every time we propose a policy we need to do this:

  1. Question the policy idea
  2. Gather facts and resources to observe
  3. Form an explanatory Hypothesis
  4. Test this by performing an experiment and collecting data about the hypothesis
  5. Analyze the data recorded from the experiment
  6. Draw a conclusion for the hypothesis
  7. Propose the policy idea

Next we examine History Lessons. We as a movement need to tell the history exactly as it’s been recorded while still putting it in Young Adult context. The days of teaching conspiracy theories as history facts and putting them in Elderly adult context are done!

Okay now I can explain what I mean by easy-going humor. Or rather, easy-going sense of humor. Libertarians as a movement need an Easy-going sense of humor as that is something most Americans want in leaders. This is along with toughness, empathy, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, etc.

Lastly we come to Healthy Empathizing, this means we need a middle ground form of empathizing with other humans. For example if someone has suffered and survived a violent crime we as a movement need to empathize with the victim while being eager to exert harshness against his/her attacker. We need to be pursuing justice for that individual and we need to think of his/her attacker as a barbarian. No compromise there, it’s what most Americans want in a movement seeking to normalize its own political ideals.

Libertarians are the Political Descendants of Classical Liberalism.

Pretty official, I think, this is something very important to point out. Libertarian is simply the modern synonym for Classical Liberal. We as a movement need to carry on all the traditions of classical liberalism, not just the ones who fit some anarchist or pacifist narrative. These traditions are:

  1. Civil Liberties
  2. Political Freedom
  3. Western Democracy
  4. Rule of Law
  5. Constitutionalism
  6. Economic Rights
  7. Natural Law
  8. Scientific Progress

Notice how all of these are all about domestic policy, so what about foreign and defense policy?

Common Defense and Free Trade

Libertarians need to give up on a certain behavior in order to come off to most Americans as relatable. That behavior is demanding everyone to accept that somehow merging paranoid conspiracy theories against any level of American involvement overseas with naive pacifism that believes barbarians will civilize themselves if we invite them to be friends and customers to us. Such behavior needs to stop, and will never allow us libertarians to normalize ourselves. We need to look at all of the facts about:

  1. Most Americans wanting the US military to be both the world’s toughest military by a long-long way and a military that only defends its own people.
  2. Most Americans opposing cuts to US military funding and seeing Jihadist militias as top threats.
  3. Most Americans approving the US military campaign against Jihadist militias.
  4. Most Americans siding with Israel against the Arab League regarding the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
  5. Most Americans viewing multilateral organizations like NATO and OECD favorably.

And then we need to look at all the historic facts, exactly as they have been recorded, as to eventually figure out why most Americans hold these opinions. We also need to be very careful not to rely on sources that are emotionally biased and that lack objectivity. And this does not mean we stick to anti-Defense addictions in order to serve personal feelings. NO, we need to examine all the facts and objectively arrive at conclusions that will have us coming off to the American People as the best-informed political activist wave in America.

Conclusion

Thanks for reading,

~LDA

How Libertarians Ought to Determine an Existential Threat To American Interests

Iraq War Name

Libertarians need to not just be open to calling these guys in as default resort. But also libertarians like me need to know as I already do when its right to call these guys in.

When should libertarians call for U.S. military action overseas?

I recently came around preferring to call myself a classical liberal instead of calling myself a libertarian. And if you contrast this essay you’re about to read to the rhetoric you hear from most proudly self-professed libertarians on military policy, you’ll see why. So please read this essay before making that side-by-side contrast, if you want.

When a U.S. National Interest is in danger.

But wait, one may say as to ask, What is a national interest? Let me explain…

Given that definition, let us look at the constitution. Specifically, the Preamble. What does this thing say?

  • We the People, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty onto ourselves and our posterity; do ordain and establish the this constitution for the United States of America.

I have underlined and italicized the terms that are relevant to this discussion. These are constitutionally our national interests. Our constitutional national interests by category are:

Economic:

  1. Establishing Justice for all American merchants & workers
  2. Insuring Domestic Tranquility for all American merchants & workers
  3. Providing the common defense onto all American merchants & workers
  4. Promoting the General Well-being (that’s what the constitution means by welfare) for all American merchants & workers
  5. Securing Economic Liberty onto all American merchants & workers

Military:

  1. Establishing Justice for all American civilians
  2. Insuring domestic tranquility for all American civilians
  3. Providing the common defense onto all American civilians
  4. Promoting the general well-being of all American civilians
  5. Securing Economic and Civil Liberty for all American civilians

Cultural:

  1. Establishing Justice for Americans of all lifestyles
  2. Insuring domestic tranquility for Americans of all lifestyles
  3. Providing the common defense onto Americans of all lifestyles
  4. Promoting the General well-being for Americans of all lifestyles
  5. Securing Civil Liberty for Americans of all lifestyles

What exactly endangers a National Interest?

When some tyrannical society decides its going to use its establishment military or some like-minded guerrilla militias to carry out genocide or terrorism or other violent crimes against Americans, that’s ringing all bells in the Constitutional Preamble like this.

  1. By Disestablishing justice of Americans
  2. By Revoking domestic tranquility of Americans
  3. By Undermining common defense of Americans
  4. By Demoting the general well-being of Americans
  5. By Ravaging Economic Rights and Personal Freedoms of Americans

When some tyrannical society decides it wants to dominate or destroy a fellow free society that the American People have customers, employees, family and/or friends in, that’s against all five of Everyday Americans’ constitutionally defined national interests.

Can I Give A Hypothetical Example of a Foreign Aggression Against American Constitutional Interests?

Yes, I can.

If the Iranian government was to issue a fatwa against twelve American-born Shia women of US citizenship for giving up on Shia Islam to become Deists, telling Iranian military to kill them wherever they are as ‘apostates’. Then the United States People would have every right to destroy the Iranian regime, including its entire military, on Iranian soil. And the reason for that is because Iran is revoking justice, tranquility, well-being, and liberty from these twelve innocent ladies.

What About a Historic Example that actually happened?

Let’s trek back to the American Civil War era. Why did the American civil war start? Well, it was because the southern half of the country wanted to secede from the Union to avoid having to respect the Article One Section Nine mandate to abolish slavery during 1808.

Instead these American states wanted to deny domestic tranquility to Americans on basis of skin color, and also deny them justice, defense, well-being and liberty. This was the Confederate States in the 1860’s violating the Constitution and directly harming American Constitutional Interests as defined above. And thus William T Sherman had to do the Savannah Campaign to the Slave States; in order to bring justice, tranquility, defense, well-being and liberty to black Americans and other American minorities living in the Confederate States.

Conclusion

Well, that’s my viewpoint. Only use military actions and mercenary hirings to directly defend US Constitutional interests as defined in the Preamble. But after the enemy is destroyed; do what we did with Germany, Japan and Italy post-WW2 by drafting the defeated nation a constitution to build their new government on; bring 80% of US troops home while leaving the rest behind to oversee free trade being opened with the people of the defeated nation.

Thanks readers;

~LDA

What Work to do on fabricating Libertarian Foreign Policy

440px-constitution_of_the_united_states2c_page_1

We The People must have a sensible discussion about U.S. libertarian foreign policy.

What’s the Purpose of Government in foreign policy?

Generally, what is the purpose of government in any sphere of life? We ought to look at the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Preamble, before we answer that question. The preamble reads this.

“We The People, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

Some fancy words, not so much big words, are used in the official Preamble of U.S. Constitutional law. Allow me to define them.

  • Tranquility is the condition of being peaceful
  • Welfare, in the constitutional preamble, just means human well-being
  • Posterity is a blanket reference to future generations

Libertarian Foreign Policy

We as libertarians must call for an American foreign policy of Constitutionalism that only cares about securing justice, homeland tranquility, well being, economic freedom, and civil liberty for Americans. This is as opposed to Ron Paul’s Just War Theorist brand of Nonintervention, as opposed to the Democracy Promotion policy of George W. Bush, and as opposed to the Humanitarian Intervention policy of Barack H. Obama.

We as libertarians must accept and assert that the American People are able to safely do free trade and free migration with almost any foreign country because of American Military presence in a majority of America’s neighbors. And we must accept and assert that U.S. membership in multilateralism clubs like OECD and NATO has been of great benefit to America’s ability to defend the constitutional rights of Americans.

Libertarians should continue to assert that trade and migration make for better foreign relations than war, but should stop using this fact of life as an excuse to discredit the US military for its facilitation of world peace.

The War On Terrorism

If libertarians ever want to become the norm in U.S. politics, they need to start accepting and asserting the fact of life that the Islamic States sent their Jihad militias to war against the United States because these States and Militias hate the American People’s acceptance of Non-Islamic moralities. No more asserting that it’s because of the CIA story of blowback, or that it’s because of their lack of wealth, or that it’s because most Americans are Pro-Israel.

Libertarians like me need to do as I do by promoting the idea that America is not at war with the behavior of terrorism but rather the philosophy of Salafism. Just like how World War Two and the Cold War were wars against Nazism and Stalinism, respectively.

And we as libertarians need to explain Salafism exactly like it is. Which means we as a movement need to be claiming that the Salafis are theocratic extremists within the Islamic community who wish to dictate every aspect of human living and to replace every nation’s constitution with their own puritanical interpretation of the Koran. We need to claim that Salafis want to use copies of the Koran as national, state and city constitutions, that they want to spread a Koranic purist monarchy across the globe, and we need to prove with unedited records that they constantly express this desire openly.

Morals for Defensive War

Libertarians have the intellectual capacity to form an unprecedented and very Constitutionalist minded morality for warfare, but remorsefully have not used this intellectual capacity. This must change.

When America goes to war, it should only be a matter of the Legislative Branch issuing both a declaration of war and a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, and even so only to defend the American People from foreign aggression. The resulting collaboration of US military and mercenary militaries must do everything visibly mandatory to destroying the initial aggressor, on the initial aggressor’s soil. If taking no prisoners and bulldozing every building under enemy military control is mandatory to ending the threat to America’s People and Constitution, then US libertarians need to support it. The specific goal of this total war needs to be the unconditional surrender of the enemy people to respecting the American People’s rights to Life, Liberty and Prosperity. After the regime of the enemy country is destroyed, the United States needs to bring about 80% of its original force home while still leaving behind just enough troops to oversee the defeated enemy maturing via free trade into a classically liberal nation as Germany, Italy and Japan did after World War Two.

Looking at current events, these Islamic States need to be severely attacked in order to crush their ability and will to aid any level of Jihad at all. Saudi Arabia has sponsored most of 9/11 and recently threatened economic damage to the US if it educates the American People about how the Saudis overtly export Salafism. The proper libertarian response is to take that as Saudi Arabia asking for total war on them by the American People. In fact, Saudi Arabia needs to be the primary target of the War on Salafism. This is with all other openly declared Islamic States in the Greater Middle East as secondary targets; and make ISIS, Taliban and other Jihad militias to be tertiary targets.

Israel and other foreign Free Societies

Whether it is Israel, Sweden or some other Western Democracy aka Free Society, libertarians should be calling it a morally good nation. And should be calling for US diplomacy abroad to openly play favorites with America’s fellow free societies, aka fellow Western Democracies. Libertarians should be talking in a positive light about mutual respect between free nations, not all nations, and should advocate for honest U.S. friendship with Israel and other Free Societies only.

And Israel is not the only one. Japan and South Korea should be nations that libertarians play favorites with over China and North Korea on a world wide diplomacy level. When it comes to muslim-majority nations, libertarians need to advocate a diplomacy of extensive favoritism to Albania, because that’s the Islamic World’s freest society.

Conclusion

Thanks for the read,

~LDA

Interventionism and Nonintervention are Not an On or off Switch

shutterstock_262713128

Libertarians need to adopt a legit foreign policy. Which begins with noting that choice is NOT “Yes to foreign intervention or No to foreign intervention”.

Nonintervention is not an On or Off switch, and should not be treated like one. Especially not by libertarians.

For the longest time I have seen nonintervention as inherently wrong for the cause of Liberty. But then I discovered the fact that foreign intervention and nonintervention are not an on or off switch. I learned from research that the question is not “Are we going to be Foreign Interventionist or Non Interventionist?”. But instead the true foreign policy question is “How much foreign intervention does our nation need to engage in?”

And thus I bring you all this post.

What the Reality Based Answer Is.

Finding the reality based answer requires asking the question “What is the purpose of Government?” Well, according to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of the government is this. “To establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity“.

So, in short, the purpose of the U.S. federal government is to secure Justice, Tranquility, Well-being, and Liberty for current and future Americans.

The reason I declare this the answer to the ‘purpose of government’ question is because libertarians and classical liberals (aka ACTUAL liberals) have something in common. We are Constitutionalists, greatly in favor of a Western Democracy that abides by a classically liberal Constitution like the U.S. constitution.

So really, the answer to the foreign intervention question of how much we need is honestly a vague one that the meaning of can vary by nation-specific situation.

And that foreign intervention answer is “Only as much or little as is mandatory to establish justice, provide defense, promote well-being, and secure freedom for current and future American humans.”

The Meaning of the answer

Given the answer to the foreign intervention question; this means the purpose of the U.S. federal government is not:

  • To impose democracy on foreign populations
  • To bribe Egypt to copy and paste Swedish economics
  • To dump food into intent of ending foreign famines

NONE of the above. The purpose of the fed is to defend justice, well-being, civil liberties and economic rights for all of the American People.

Also, allow us to look at the mainstream libertarian rhetoric about never waging war unless its within in our borders and even then only for defending American soil. Now think about the differences you were raised on from birth to know between Soil and Humans. Such rhetoric is inappropriate! It is open refusal to do the U.S. fed gov’s one Constitutional Job! It is directly rejecting the Constitutional task to Ensure Domestic Tranquility by claiming there is no need to confront and defeat an initial aggressor unless that aggressor is destroying U.S. property and killing U.S. people in the U.S.! It is rather callously disregarding domestic tranquility, as well as callously DEMOTING the General Welfare of the American People. And as for Justice, Well-being and Freedom for future Americans (including ones who are currently teens but will eventually or soon be adults), this mainstream libertarian moral sickness actively opposes the constitutional “Securing of Liberty onto our Posterity”.

What should U.S. Libertarian Foreign Policy Be?

Knowing there is more to the American Constitution than just the Preamble, how do libertarians formulate a Middle Ground foreign policy that…

  • Establishes Justice,
  • Ensures Domestic Tranquility,
  • Provides diamond-hard Common Defense,
  • Promotes General Welfare,
  • and Secures Freedom for American humans of every age, including fertilized unborn Americans?
  • Without giving the power to Wage Defensive Wars or the power to Issue Death Marques to anyone outside of the Legislative Branch?

Well, the fact that only the Legislative Branch can declare wars or issue marques means that the Executive, despite its harboring of one called “Commander in Chief”, exists only to operate overseas as the Legislative directs and permits it.

That’s one of many points of our Constitutional Republic.

Granted all of the above Libertarian foreign policy in America in the Digital Age should be a matter of abiding purely but only by the American Constitution.

“Constitutional Egoism”, I call it. If libertarians are constitutionalists by definition and mainly by our difference from anarchists, then U.S. libertarian foreign policy should care only about upholding the U.S. Constitution equally for all U.S. citizens.

  • Why to engage with the world should be answered only with the Preamble of the Constitution.
  • How to engage with the world should be answered only with Article One, Section Eight, Clauses Ten to Eighteen of the Constitution.

Conclusion

I hope I have explained this well. Thank you anyone who read this,

~LDA

Libertarians Outside of the LP Divided on What America’s Foreign Policy Need Be

Superior LP Logo

Yeah so what exactly is real foreign policy opinion in the U.S. liberty movement?

Widespread Uncertainty among Libertarian Dems, Reps and Inds about what America needs for foreign policy.

So I have done yet another revisit of this article from Pew Research Center about foreign policy, and this libertarians article to. Knowing also from Gallup that Democrats, Republicans and Independents respectively make up 29%, 26%, and 42% of Americans; I might as well project some facts one only needs basic facts to discover.

There are 325 million people in the nation this year, and that’s why the numbers will be as they are in this article.

While the Libertarian Party basically worships pacifism…

Most libertarians who will never associate with the Libertarian Party (myself included starting tomorrow after I get off work at 4:00 PM) are about as uncertain as the general public; but there do seem to be some parallels.

Before we begin, there are about 36 million libertarians in the nation in total; 20 million (56%) are Independents, 10 million (28%) are Republicans, 6 million (16%) are Democrats. But across all three of these partisanships, there seems to be a pattern among libertarians who are within the ‘DRI’ system (Democrats-Republicans-Independents).

US Global Role and US Military Superpower

Grouping the moderate wings of both mainstream parties as the ‘libertarian’ wings, it appears that 57% of libertarian Democrats (3.4 million), 60% of libertarian Republicans (6 million), and 63% of libertarian Independents (12.6 million) can all agree that the only humans America has a moral obligation to defend, protect and avenge are those who are American citizens.

However, it is also agreed between these three groups that the US military should be the only military on Earth who is a superpower:

  • 60% of libertarian Republicans (6 million) agree
  • 64% of libertarian Democrats (3.8 million) agree
  • 52% of libertarian Independents (10.4 million including me very soon) agree

Foreign Aggressors And Defense Budget

While the L-partiers in libertarian ideology are whitewashing Islamic Statessponsoring of Jihad to promote hatred of America, overwhelming majorities of D-partiers, R-partiers, and Independents in libertarian ideology are agreeing to put aside Party and unite against these Jihad sponsoring States. Libertarian Democrats who class the global Jihad and the Islamic States who sponsor it as a major enemy of America number at 5.2 million, or 87%. Libertarian Independents who share this understanding number at about 15.2 million meaning statistically 76%. Libertarian Republicans who agree with their Independent and Democrat counterparts on this belief number at 8.8 million, meaning 88%.

As for tensions with Russia, it is clear you don’t have to be mentally stuck in the Cold War to be a Pro-Defense Libertarian. Only half of libertarian Democrats call Digital Age Russia a major enemy of America, 3 million. Only 51% of libertarian Independents see Russia as severe problem for America, 10.2 million. Only 49% of libertarian Republicans, 4.9 million, believe Russia to be a major threat to American humans.

Turning to the U.S. Military and keeping them the best-funded military on Earth, as is needed to protect liberty from foreign aggression, seems to be a lost cause to the Libertarian Party. This is a party who openly pledges to ‘dramatically downsize’ the US military, even though its preeminence overseas is mandatory to keeping trade and immigration much more common than war.

Libertarians outside of the LP, on the other hand, seem to mostly agree on accepting the moral necessity of keeping American soldiers the most numerous, highest funded, best trained and most healthily cared-for on Earth. Here are the numbers reflecting that.

  • 45% (4.5 million) of libertarian Republicans accept the need for a stronger US military, while 39% (3.9 million) of them are okay with the US military being exactly strong as it is now.
  • 40% (8 million) libertarian Independents are satisfied with current US military strength while I will very soon be among 31% (6.2 million) who accept the logistical and moral necessity of a stronger US military.
  • 51% (3 million) libertarian Democrats are okay with current US military strength while 26% (1.6 million) agree with me that a stronger US military is good for increasing the favorites played with trade and immigration over warfare.

The War On Jihad and how to Address Islamic States Sponsoring Jihad

As the Libertarian Party is flagellating itself, lying through its members’ mouths, by claiming the America is to blame for every single Jihad that happens on Earth, libertarians of party affiliations D, R, and I approve of the War On Jihad but disagree about how to conduct it.

6.6 million libertarian Republicans, 3.9 million libertarian Democrats, and 11.4 million libertarian Independents can all agree on Approving of the War on Jihad declared by George W. Bush after 9/11 and revived by Barack H. Obama in reply to 2014 controversies about ISIS.

But then this where the disagreement begins. Where in the LP voters are brainwashed into thinking that sending in US Ground Troops to defeat Jihadist militias, libertarians who prefer reality over the LP (as the Independent I am does) disagree about how to defeat them.

For example, 10.2 million Independents in the libertarian movement oppose sending in ground troops, I am one of 9 million who favor it. Also, 5.8 million Republicans of the libertarian movement support sending in infantry, 4.1 million Democrats of the libertarian movement agree and 5.7 million libertarian Democrats disagree.

What’s the best way to defeat Jihad in reality in the Digital Age? I am a libertarian Independent who believes that the only way to defeat Jihad in the Digital Age is to annihilate the Greater Middle East theocracies who sponsor it, combining actual military with Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Evidently 9 million other Independents in libertarianism agree with me on that. As do 5.6 million Republicans in libertarianism, and as do 2.5 million Democrats in libertarianism, while disagreement with me on this comes from 3.4 million libertarian Democrats.

1948-Present Arab-Israeli War

Back in 1948; Saudi Arabia lead a coalition consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Sudan into War of Aggression against Israel. Only one year after Israel was set up by Britain as humanitarian compensation to the Jewish People for the Nazi-German Holocaust. Egypt and Jordan controlled a land called Gaza and a land called West Bank, respectively, since that year.

These days, the Libertarian Party’s voter base instinctively demonizes Israel and whitewashes its 7+ enemies as part of its official platform. But where do all the reality-based libertarians sit?

Marvelously, 6.5 million libertarian Republicans and 3.2 million libertarian Democrats know the moral necessity of siding with Israel. I am also joined by 10.4 million libertarian Independents on this issue, as I side with Israel against Saudi Arabia and its coalition regarding the Arab-Israeli War.

Conclusion

So as we can see, major party libertarians and Independent libertarians like me do lean more to Non-intervention than to Humanitarian intervention in regards to which humans it is America’s job to defend. But myself, other libertarian Independents, and also libertarians of the major parties are dramatically more in touch with reality and have drastically more in common with everyday Americans on foreign policy than the LP will ever allow itself to. Thanks for reading,

~LDA