View Poll Results: Which military alliances do you support?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization

    6 46.15%
  • Afghanistan (post-invasion)

    3 23.08%
  • ASEAN (Philippines, Vietnam, etc.)

    4 30.77%
  • Australia & New Zealand

    4 30.77%
  • Botswana

    2 15.38%
  • Georgia

    2 15.38%
  • Iraq (post-invasion)

    3 23.08%
  • Israel

    3 23.08%
  • Japan

    4 30.77%
  • Colombia

    0 0%
  • Kosovo

    2 15.38%
  • Non-NATO Europe (Austria, Sweden, etc.)

    6 46.15%
  • Singapore

    2 15.38%
  • South Korea

    7 53.85%
  • Taiwan

    4 30.77%
  • Thailand

    2 15.38%
  • Ukraine

    3 23.08%
  • United Arab Emirates

    1 7.69%
  • NONE: No Alliances Whatsoever

    5 38.46%
  • Other / Don't Care

    1 7.69%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

  1. #1

    Default Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Most conservative and left-wing groups in the developed world are in agreement when it comes to membership in alliances such as NATO, ANZUS and others. However, it would seem that some groups outside of the mainstream policy-making circles (libertarians, fascists, communists, etc.) tend to be less supportive of alliances. For this topic, I would like to focus primarily on libertarians.

    In the early days of American classical liberalism, military alliances were often viewed with skepticism. However, they were not entirely ruled out, as the Founding Fathers and post-revolutionary Americans formed temporary alliances with several countries, such as France during the American Revolution (and War of 1812), Sweden during the Barbary Wars, the Netherlands during the Sumatran Expedition, Britain & France during the Opium Wars, etc. However, these alliances seldom lasted following their respective conflicts.

    Some early American classical liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson, took a more interventionist approach to foreign policy, believing that the United States should create an "empire of liberty." Jefferson's vision of democratic countries working together didn't bring about any long-standing alliances, however, as much of the world was still ruled by autocratic governments at the time. Several early policymakers continued Jefferson's ideas by attempting to build better relations with the fledgling Latin American countries, though no formal military alliances were ever formed.

    The only major peace-time military alliance prior to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, appears to be between the United States and Korea. Article I of the 1882 Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation stated:
    Chosen, being a dependent state of the Chinese Empire, has nevertheless hitherto exercised her own sovereignty in all matters of internal administration and foreign relations. After the conclusion of this Treaty, the King of Chosen and the President of the United States shall treat with each other upon terms of perfect equality, and the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall maintain perpetual relations of friendship. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other shall render assistance and protection, or shall act as mediator in order to the preservation of perfect peace.
    Source: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/ko...2%20Treaty.pdf

    Modern libertarians are somewhat divided on the issue of military alliances. During the Cold War, most libertarians supported America's commitment to the defense of the free world. Libertarian political leaders, such as Gary Johnson, never wavered in their commitment to America's allies and even supported the Vietnam War. Libertarian-leaning authors during the Cold War, such as Robert A. Heinlein, wrote about the importance of the United States leading a "world government" to prevent a nuclear war.

    Other Cold War libertarians, such as Ron Paul, were very critical of America's alliance system. Senator Ron Paul has long opposed American intervention and military cooperation between the free world. With that being said, Ron Paul has argued that World War II and the early stages of the War in Afghanistan were justified. He has also voiced some sympathy towards Israel, though believes that the United States should remain neutral if Israel's neighbors attack them.

    Following Ron Paul's retirement, there seems to be a growing movement away from non-interventionist policy in libertarian camps. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's candidate in the 2012 presidential election, has stated that he supports military alliances and overseas American military bases in cases where it is legitimately beneficial to American security. Johnson has stated that he supports American alliances (and military bases in) Europe, Japan and South Korea; though he believes that our presence should be scaled back. Johnson supported the initial stages of the War in Afghanistan. Johnson has also voiced his support for Israel and has stated that he would use the American military to defend Israel's right to exist. Johnson has also argued for American aid to the Ugandan military in their conflict against the Lord's Resistance Army.

    Despite Johnson's support for America's alliances with Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea, he has been strongly opposed to many other conflicts. Johnson was critical of the Iraq War and NATO intervention in Libya. He has also stated that he would be very cautious in dealing with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, believing it is not a significant risk to the United States. Johnson has also argued that the United States should seek a diplomatic solution when dealing with Iran.

    Ron Paul's own son, Rand Paul, has also been more supportive of a "realist" foreign policy. Rand Paul has supported the American-led coalition against the Islamic State. Rand Paul has also supported America's alliance with Israel, though he supports major reductions in aid to Israel. Like Gary Johnson, Rand Paul supports the existence of some American military bases in allied countries, though believes that they should be scaled down to a "necessary" size. Unlike Johnson, however, Rand Paul has voiced support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion.

    Most libertarians in Europe support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and close ties with the United States. Prominent British libertarians, such as Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage and Pat Condell are among a few such NATO supporters. Daniel Hannan has supported Britain's close ties with the United States and the War in Afghanistan, however he opposed the Iraq War. Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party also support NATO, but have opposed to intervention in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Pat Condell has defended Israel's right to defend itself and has publicly attacked Hamas and Hamas sympathizers.

    With libertarians in the free world seemingly shifting from a strictly non-interventionist position to a more "cautious realism" position, I am curious as to what the libertarian members of this board think of American/European foreign policy. Are you supportive of NATO? Israel? South Korea? Taiwan? Is there ever justification for interventionism outside of self-defense? And are there any foreign military bases you would keep open (i.e. Japan, Korea)?

    As for the poll, anyone can vote in it and express their views on each military alliance, regardless of their political views or nationality. Also, please note that while Singapore is a member of ASEAN, I have listed them separately, as some members might support Singapore as a country, but not ASEAN as a whole.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Sometimes political realities have to eclipse your political ideals. Its hard to imagine what the world might look like today if the US had maintained its non direct intervention from the start of WII, but I think its safe to say the world would not have been better off, nor would the US have been better off.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Admin note: I replaced "Korea" with Colombia as per the OP's request. All votes given to "Korea" were transferred to "South Korea".

  4. #4

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    Sometimes political realities have to eclipse your political ideals. Its hard to imagine what the world might look like today if the US had maintained its non direct intervention from the start of WII, but I think its safe to say the world would not have been better off, nor would the US have been better off.
    Quite on contrary, US and definitely the rest of the world would have been better off if US would tend to its own problems, rather then bringing its problems to the rest of the world.

  5. #5
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    I'm not libertarian but I'm... sympathetic? I like to see them moving more towards defensive-realist foreign policy and I wish they were as concerned about private power as they are about the government, but in general I think I 'get' them more than I get mainstream American liberals or conservatives.

    At any rate I think I support all of the above. None of them strike me as particularly objectionable on the scale of the world's nations.

  6. #6
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Head back to the root of all interventions and you see they end up spawning more trouble in the long run. I view World War 2 as largely a one off semi apocalyptic hellspawn event and yeah deal with things on a case by case basis. Would I just stand by and watch the Rwanden Genocide if I saw it coming, hell no. But most wars are bad, and that is all I'll give as a very general answer. Other than that, everything should be talked about specifically.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Quite on contrary, US and definitely the rest of the world would have been better off if US would tend to its own problems, rather then bringing its problems to the rest of the world.
    Being their problems became OUR problems, I fail to see how this is a truism.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    I am a libertarian, but I do not see myself as a member of the LP in the foreseeable future. My objection is from the prevailing mentality of many who run for office. I grew tired of candidates calling for a complete dismantling of the government within "x" number of days. WE are addicted to government and you cannot just stop having it. Foreign policy is no different. There are certain realities that cannot be ignored. We sort of made our bed and now we have to lie in it. Ideally, a more cooperative structure would be nice, but just isn't possible for the moment. When it comes to politics, you can vote on principle, but in the end, pragmatism will always prevail.
    Last edited by PikeStance; October 24, 2014 at 04:52 AM. Reason: Ommitted words in last sentence

  9. #9
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I am a libertarian, but I do not see myself as a member of the LP in the foreseeable future. My objection is from the prevailing mentality of many who run for office. I grew tired of candidates calling for a complete dismantling of the government within "x" number of days. WE are addicted to government and you cannot just stop having it. Foreign policy is no different. There are certain realities that cannot be ignored. We sort of made our bed and now we have to lie in it. Ideally, a more cooperative structure would be nice, but just isn't possible for the moment. When to politics, you can vote on principle, but in the end, pragmatism will always prevail.
    Yeah it is pathetic. They can't just pick a winning platform, one that is demonstrably right like ending the war on drugs and create a common platform. I've tried getting involved with the libertarian movement and it is like dealing with children or religious fanatics.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I am a libertarian, but I do not see myself as a member of the LP in the foreseeable future. My objection is from the prevailing mentality of many who run for office. I grew tired of candidates calling for a complete dismantling of the government within "x" number of days. WE are addicted to government and you cannot just stop having it. Foreign policy is no different. There are certain realities that cannot be ignored. We sort of made our bed and now we have to lie in it. Ideally, a more cooperative structure would be nice, but just isn't possible for the moment. When to politics, you can vote on principle, but in the end, pragmatism will always prevail.
    This is generally my position. Libertarian moderates and the libertarian left are ridiculed and sidelined by the anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Party or the radical fundamentalist Tea Party.
    Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri

  11. #11

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker View Post
    This is generally my position. Libertarian moderates and the libertarian left are ridiculed and sidelined by the anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Party or the radical fundamentalist Tea Party.
    Technically there shouldn't be a libertarian left or right. What is the difference between a libertarian left and a run of the mill progressive?
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Libertarianism = Anarchism
    Left Libertarianism/ anarchism= Collectivism Anarchism/ anarcho - syndicalism/ Mutualism / anarcho- communism (presumably to distinguish itself from the bastardization that has become communism in pop culture
    Right Libertarianism/ anarchism= Individualism Anarchism or Anarcho- Capitalist.
    What is important distinction is that there is NO state. The existence of a state means an absence of anarchism.
    Minarchist or as Milton Freedman calls it; consequentialism is the next level. The LEFT as people call it are more accurately define as socialist or social democrats. The more government you want, the more authoritarian you become.

    BTW, I know many of you know this.... more for the silent third party readers.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    By any other name.... its still hippies.

    Left libertarianism is about as useful a term as "peoples republic", only a lot less functional.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  14. #14
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    Technically there shouldn't be a libertarian left or right. What is the difference between a libertarian left and a run of the mill progressive?
    That's like saying there shouldn't be a moderate and far right or left. This is pretty much exactly why the Libertarian party will never be a big tent.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    That's like saying there shouldn't be a moderate and far right or left. This is pretty much exactly why the Libertarian party will never be a big tent.
    The concepts of left and right doesn't apply well to Libertarianism. Most libertarian left are indistinguishable from 1960's hippies. The only real argument I see is between anarcho capitalists and those who think there is a minimum government needed.

    Really I see anarcho capitalists as bad as the Marxists in terms of not understanding human nature. For anarcho capitalism to succeed you would need people willing to abide by a certain honor code that would very quickly break down. Just as Marxism quickly leads to massive abuses of power so would anarcho capitalism.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    Being their problems became OUR problems, I fail to see how this is a truism.
    Not really. American interventionism doesn't benefit the American people. It only benefits the financial elites, which are the ones who gain profit from these wars through the military-industrial complex and oil trade, all at the expense of American people, who pay for all of this with their taxes and send their own people as cannon-fodder.

  17. #17
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,364

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    The concepts of left and right doesn't apply well to Libertarianism. Most libertarian left are indistinguishable from 1960's hippies. The only real argument I see is between anarcho capitalists and those who think there is a minimum government needed.

    Really I see anarcho capitalists as bad as the Marxists in terms of not understanding human nature. For anarcho capitalism to succeed you would need people willing to abide by a certain honor code that would very quickly break down. Just as Marxism quickly leads to massive abuses of power so would anarcho capitalism.
    Well, you "see", thus that statement is alright, it's your truth (shared by some others, too, that's right), but nothing more.

    2nd bold, you obviously would wonder about it, how many items in modern western democracies have aspects of Marxism, and that they don't lead/led to "massive abuses of power" (Marxism items loosely understood here as socialist/social-democrat aspects).

    Note, i'm not a marxist, but the always everywhere mentioned hate on/for Marxism is somehow annoying (as well the everywhere seemingly popular hate for hippies), it's imo. history-distortion. Marx simply had have developed some theories with substancial character in the 19th century (partly together with Engels), he is an important philosopher of that period, who influenced a lot of the then due future, some outcomes or let's say usages of his theories were rather bad applied and here and there imo. also wrong interpreted and/or changed for what you say "massive abuses of power" and extreme violence (what i see rather as social-fascist or fascist-socialist application, in german called rather "real-communism" ie. of USSR character, that certainly wasn't what Marx wished, but what Lenin prepared, and what under Stalin was so to speak perverted, thus it is called also Stalinism, not to forget but also Maoism here), some are rather good in certain respects, especially were modernised, ie. within modern social-democracy and social market economy (sure, far away from classical Marxism, but his theories, and from many other philosophers, provided the roots for social progress).

    Else, about libertarianism in regard of anarcho-capitalism, i completely agree.
    Last edited by DaVinci; October 29, 2014 at 01:38 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    Well, you "see", thus that statement is alright, it's your truth (shared by some others, too, that's right), but nothing more.

    2nd bold, you obviously would wonder about it, how many items in modern western democracies have aspects of Marxism, and that they don't lead/led to "massive abuses of power" (Marxism items loosely understood here as socialist/social-democrat aspects).

    Note, i'm not a marxist, but the always everywhere mentioned hate on/for Marxism is somehow annoying (as well the everywhere seemingly popular hate for hippies), it's imo. history-distortion. Marx simply had have developed some theories with substancial character in the 19th century (partly together with Engels), he is an important philosopher of that period, who influenced a lot of the then due future, some outcomes or let's say usages of his theories were rather bad applied and here and there imo. also wrong interpreted and/or changed for what you say "massive abuses of power" and extreme violence (what i see rather as social-fascist or fascist-socialist application, in german called rather "real-communism" ie. of USSR character, that certainly wasn't what Marx wished, but what Lenin prepared, and what under Stalin was so to speak perverted, thus it is called also Stalinism, not to forget but also Maoism here), some are rather good in certain respects, especially were modernised, ie. within modern social-democracy and social market economy (sure, far away from classical Marxism, but his theories, and from many other philosophers, provided the roots for social progress).

    Else, about libertarianism in regard of anarcho-capitalism, i completely agree.
    "Real" Marxism is like "real" anarcho-capitalism, it will never get tried "for real" because its a bad idea. There are plenty who still think of themselves as Marxists out there, and they are horribly naive (at best).
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  19. #19
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,364

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    "Real" Marxism is like "real" anarcho-capitalism, it will never get tried "for real" because its a bad idea. There are plenty who still think of themselves as Marxists out there, and they are horribly naive (at best).
    It actually depends on where you live aka under which circumstances. There is for example the lenist-marxist branch, people who see the (even when old and in principle perhaps or merely probably outdated in its ideological goal) approach of the social-revolutionary cell as a necessarity, just to change a violent opressing exploiting murding regime of fascists. Often, those people first tried somehting in a peaceful way, then imprisoned, tortured, viewing their family people murdered whatsoever etc. ... put yourself into that perspective, maybe you see the item then a bit different?

    Further but, there are also terror groups who exploit the term 'marxist or communist' in their own group-name, for their pure gangster plans.

    Plus: If they (the above called leninist-marxists) have a socialist structured state as goal vs the existing fascist state, then that is for me far more sympathetic as ie. the other side of the coin, a fascist terror group is trying to make up a fascist structured state within a mere liberal state and/or existing democracy or real-socialist/communist state (the latter, unfortunately a violent opressing dictatorship in our reality, but that doesn't mean automatically, that something like that won't be possible in future in a modernsied sense and kind in a peaceful manner). The most worst people are fascists esp when violent, as their ideal lacks every progressive character for the humankind.
    Last edited by DaVinci; October 29, 2014 at 05:53 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    Well, you "see", thus that statement is alright, it's your truth (shared by some others, too, that's right), but nothing more.

    2nd bold, you obviously would wonder about it, how many items in modern western democracies have aspects of Marxism, and that they don't lead/led to "massive abuses of power" (Marxism items loosely understood here as socialist/social-democrat aspects).

    Note, i'm not a marxist, but the always everywhere mentioned hate on/for Marxism is somehow annoying (as well the everywhere seemingly popular hate for hippies), it's imo. history-distortion. Marx simply had have developed some theories with substancial character in the 19th century (partly together with Engels), he is an important philosopher of that period, who influenced a lot of the then due future, some outcomes or let's say usages of his theories were rather bad applied and here and there imo. also wrong interpreted and/or changed for what you say "massive abuses of power" and extreme violence (what i see rather as social-fascist or fascist-socialist application, in german called rather "real-communism" ie. of USSR character, that certainly wasn't what Marx wished, but what Lenin prepared, and what under Stalin was so to speak perverted, thus it is called also Stalinism, not to forget but also Maoism here), some are rather good in certain respects, especially were modernised, ie. within modern social-democracy and social market economy (sure, far away from classical Marxism, but his theories, and from many other philosophers, provided the roots for social progress).

    Else, about libertarianism in regard of anarcho-capitalism, i completely agree.
    I am not a big fan of characterizing people with different point of view than Marx as "hating." It suggests an ulterior motive for one's opinion when in fact may be based on reason and evidence.

    I think Marx most important contribution is his socioeconomic approach to historiography. While he inspired others,m such as Lenin and Mao, what came of up is very far from what Marx had intended or hoped for. I also wouldn't give him credit for social liberalism. I would argue he was an effect of it, not a prime mover of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •