Okay, so you are likely realizing this is just me flying off on foreign policy against the mainstream of my fellow hardcore libertarians again. But I actually want to call out Non-interventionism on both its basic definition and on how many fellow libertarians take it profanely way too far off the base we refer to as ‘humanity’.
Non-interventionism is the premise that one’s nation should avoid all alliances – stable and unstable alike – while still having diplomatic friendships with all nations, and should also not have troops outside of one’s borders and should not have them fight wars that are not exclusively about defending one’s soil.
I can dissect the problems I have with a foreign policy of this premise for everyone who reads my stuff.
Firstly, the idea that no alliances should ever be made. Yeah, I see no evidence of alliances with other free societies not being mandatory to maintaining free trade and diplomatic friendship with them.
Speaking of diplomatic friendships, Authoritarian governments, who we can just call monarchies, are by behavior not capable of diplomatic friendship, diplomatic exchange, or diplomatic anything.
And lastly the whole thing about defending national soil instead of defending national people. Um… suppose you were a leader of a republic. You had some monarchy threaten to attack your people both on your soil and on foreign soil alike. Which would you rather defend – your people or your soil? Let me break it down:
- Soil is not all that legit without people to do stuff with, for, or to it
- People are the only animals who will get creative with what an animal ought to do with soil, which is why civilization itself started up in Mesopotamia.
- People are also the animals who practically invented things like empathy, liberty, property, philosophy and defense.
- Soil may provide certain resources for economy, but who’s to say humans can avoid harvesting them and still have a free market? And still create civil liberty & social equality?
There you go, roughly three ways already in which Non-interventionism is illogical from start to finish.
Ways Libertarian Doves Take Non-Interventionism Way Too Seriously
1) Valuing Peace Over Freedom Overseas
Okay, Webster Dictionary. What’s the definition of a libertarian like me?
- A person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government
And also… what are the Libertarian Principles exactly (asking myself)?
- Civil Liberties
- Equality of Opportunity
- Rule of Law
- Economic Freedom
- Free markets
- Free trade
- Low taxes
- Minimal regulation
- Freedom of Conscience
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of Press
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of Association
- Political Freedom
- Republicanism (not the GOP, but rather favoring a republic)
Okay, so how does a libertarian get behind casting all 6+ of these aside in foreign policy? Just so one can worship peace like it is some kind of sacred messiah? I have got a painful fact of life for people who say they’re libertarian and yet take non-interventionism so far as to sideline freedom for the sake of peace: Peace on Earth absolutely MANDATES freedom on Earth, which requires an Earth of NOTHING BUT Western-cultured liberty republics.
2) Restricting Self-Defense and Defense of Others
Ugh… I cannot think of a more anti-libertarian direction to take Non-interventionism in America than to impose legions of limits to the right of a free society to use warfare to defend one’s own people or to defend another’s people against an aggressing/conquering tyrant.
“War is a Last Resort” is basically empty rhetoric to me, a proxy filth used to attack the idea of making the legal theory of “Self Defense And Defense Of Others” to be one’s foreign policy, or of including it in one’s foreign policy agenda. I get half nauseous every time I hear someone refer to Defensive war in particular as either Not The Answer or as The Last Resort. As the absurdly painful fact of life is that Defensive War is provenly the ONLY ANSWER in defeating an Initiator of Aggression.
I absolutely agree War of Aggression is inherently wrong, but as for Defensive War I am totally convinced every Free-Society Republic has a right to put up a Deadly Defense against ANY Tyrannical Monarchy.
Humanitarian Intervention is perhaps the best known example of waging Defensive War in Defense of Others. It means waging Defensive war to defend the lives of a foreign people against their government over their government doing genocide to them. I do find it sickening that humanitarian intervention is not popular with fellow minarchists. The reason I do is about that smug, self-hating attitude that permeates American libertarians in particular. And it is because I have yet to see a single argument against humanitarian interventionism that does not ignore or call for tolerance of a monarchy doing a genocide.
By modern terms, and by modern mainstream perception of why it happened, the American Civil War was in fact the American North’s humanitarian intervention into the American South to put a stop to Southern slavery; for example.
3) Ignoring the Defensive Abilities of Preventive Force
One big defensive option every free society has a right to is to use preventive force to retaliate against threats of future attack or against other forms of violently coercive blackmail.
Preventive and Preventative basically just means, according to Webster:
- Undertaken to forestall anticipated hostile action
In other words, it makes no sense to call preventive war aggressive can only make sense if it is waged to prevent a foreign entity from defending innocent lives, and historically Preventive War was only used as an act of Initial Aggression ONE TIME. By Imperial Japan against Franklin D Roosevelt’s America to prevent FDR from doing humanitarian intervention in defense of the mainland Chinese people’s lives (Imperial Japan was conquering and murdering China during the 1930’s and 1940’s until 1945).
All other acts of Preventive War were either a republic or a monarchy getting Defensive against some other monarchy blackmailing them.
But yet, many of my fellow libertarians will ignore the idea of preventively defensive war. Instead many of my political brethren tend to think there is no such thing as using defensive war to prevent conquest or prevent terrorism. They think defensive war can only be used after a massacre has already been done to Americans on American soil.
Sorry to say, but… Preventing aggression does not count as aggression, Preventing defense on the other hand does count as aggression. Not to mention, only Free Societies can do it to Tyrannies, objectively.
4) Confusing Right to Liberate with Duty to Liberate
Actual neoconservatives, vastly unlike me, will claim it is the duty of America alone to unilaterally impose liberty on all societies, that it is a mandate. Such thinking I agree is myopic, but I do not join the mainstream of my fellow libertarians in claiming there is also know right for any free society to invade and liberate any slave pen.
In fact, I think every Western culture nation – or in other words every Free Society aka every Republic – has a total right to free any foreign slaves it wants to, even if it means crippling the government who owns them.
Regrettably to me this is not the mainstream of libertarians. Instead many of us tend to think that free societies should just let foreign tyrannies keep farm all the slaves these tyrannies want to farm, as long as it is on foreign soil and not US soil (or for example in the case of UK libertarians not on UK soil).
Question to Non-interventionists: Why do you act like it is moral for any country other than our own to rule over its people like sacrificial livestock? If acting this way is not your intention then do you consider it moral for any nation on the planet, whomever it is or why ever it is ruling as it rules, to rule its people like sacrificial livestock? I do not think there is a moral mandate to liberate either, but objectively I think free societies have a moral option to liberate any enslaved people a free society wants to liberate.
5) Acting Like Minarchist Regime Change is Democratic Regime Change
Just what is minarchist regime change? Well, from what is known from the historic last step to defeating Nazi Germany, that final step in was in 1949 and was to draft a minarchist constitution for Germany to rebuild itself on. This constitution was used as the terms of the unconditional surrender by Germany at the time, and thus Germany worked its way for 55+ years into what it is this century.
This is not democratic regime change, as democratic regime change means keeping the troops in former enemy land to go on a nation-building crusade of long-time, ultra-expensive occupation, as Iraq and Afghanistan proved democratic regime change to be.
Minarchist Regime Change on the other hand is the more holistic and proven and historic way to address having just militarily defeated a foreign aggressor. Free society militarily defeats a tyranny in retaliation for that tyranny’s aggression. Then as framework of former tyranny’s unconditional surrender, Free Society drafts a constitution modeled on Minarchist vision of governance and makes it the entire terms of former tyranny’s surrender. Former tyranny signs on to the terms, and then it gradually becomes another free society. And Germany was not the only one in the 1940’s America, Britain, Canada and Australia multilaterally did Minarchist Regime Change to. Imperial Japan got the defeat of it wrapped up in 1947 by the same process as well: Minarchist-natured constitution, use of it as surrender terms, Japan signed on, Japan became a free society gradually.
Libertarians, many of my fellow hardcore ones, ignore this history though, acting like the only examples of regime change are all in the Cold War or in the War on Terror, because all of those were legit failure. Do not get me wrong, those were abject failure. But the reason they were abject failure is because none of them had us doing everything mandatory to ending the aggressors’ logistical and mental capacities for tyranny and aggression. Also none of the recent interventions had us drafting minarchist constitutions for the liberated peoples to base any sort of independently-built republic on.
Short of it, no, Democratic regime change and Minarchist regime change are in fact not synonyms. Democratic regime change is exemplified by recent campaigns like in Iraq, while Minarchist regime change is exemplified by Western Victories against Nazi Germany and against Imperial Japan.
So, all the problems colorfully explained that I have with non-interventionism are:
- Free societies can and need to make Stable Allies with each other to preserve free trade
- Honest Friendship as promoted by Thomas Jefferson is only possible between Free Societies
- Defending one’s People is vastly morally superior to simply defending national Soils
- Libertarian does not mean peace over freedom, it means freedom over everything else even as a requirement for peace
- A free society’s rights to self-defense and defense of others must be sacrosanct and must not be limited
- Preventive War can be and has been used defensively and was only used as initial aggression Once in civilizational history
- There may be no job to invade and liberate slave pens but objectively every free society is entitled to liberate any enslaved people
- While democratic regime change as favored by actual neocons is all wrong, the alternative called minarchist regime change is historically proven to be a necessity for complete victory over an initial aggressor
So in total, eight reasons why I oppose the non-interventionist mainstream of libertarians. As a libertarian myself, my opposition to non-interventionism comes not just from grounds of accepting that it is not isolationism, but mainly from grounds of favoring liberty as a requirement for peace. Also on grounds of strong opposition to pacifism and to Just War Doctrine.
Finally got this out the most intellectual way I can. I have always wanted to do an essay like this but never exactly had the knowledge necessary like I do now. Thanks all,