The Issue:
Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.
The Principle:
The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.
Solutions:
End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.
Transitional Action:
Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.
Whoomp! (There It Is):I'm takin' it back to the old school
'Cause I'm an old fool who's so cool
If you want to get down
I'm gonna show you the way
Whoomp! there it is
Well said. I generally consider myself to hold a "big-tent" view that allows a pretty wide berth of opinions to use the libertarian tag, but on this one there's just no room to debate. You simply can't espouse a belief in a philosophy of non-agression while you run around the globe committing aggressions.
ReplyDeleteIf you walk out of a restaurant and see a man with gun robbing someone else, does your principle of non-agression permit you to intervene (since as a good libertarian, you support the 2nd Amendment right to own and carry a gun)? Or must you wait until the act of aggression is taken against you?
ReplyDeleteDoes your principle of non-aggression prevent you from using force ... or the threat of force ... against someone trying to break into your neighbor's home?
Does your principle of non-aggression prevent you from being a part of a neighborhood alliance against local criminals that you will come to aid of your neighbor?
If the local hood puts out a contract to hurt you, is the local hood off limits because he wasn't the actual person who attacked you?
Maybe the local hood isn't so obvious because he doesn't want the police to arrest him for putting out the contract but you have reliable sources that tell you he was the who gave the gun and money to the guy who attacked you? Is the local hood still off-limits to you?
Whether or not you agree about Iraq in the first place, the fact is that we broke it and now we have the responsibility to fix. Or do your principles dictate the abdication of responsibility?
I'm not advocating that we recklessly intervene all over the world. But I think the utopian idea of us holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah while the world burns around us looking for an opportunity to attack is suicidal.
Neo-democrats like you are hurting the LP more than the neo-cons.
>[ridiculous comparisons 1-5]
ReplyDeleteIf I kill innocent people in the process, yes, my principle of non-aggression prohibits me from doing so. Or at least doing so and calling it "libertarian". One may decide that in certain situations utilitarianism trumps all, but call it what it is.
>the fact is that we broke it and now we have the responsibility to fix. Or do your principles dictate the abdication of responsibility?
*We* didn't break it. What, are you some sort of collectivist now?