Mission Statement

Mission Statement: This blog is dedicated to both political philosophy and application to current issues based on the ideas of limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. Additionally, this blog strives to create an atmosphere where intelligent discussions based on the principles of logic, no matter the viewpoints expressed in their conclusions, are not only welcome, but also thrive.

To learn more, feel free to read the introduction and subsequent posts which explain the aforementioned philosophy and purpose of this blog in more detail.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Issues 24: Dance with the One that Brought You -OR- Fight your own Wars!

I have spoken before about the dangers of an interventionist foreign policy. In “Issues 19: India, Pakistan, and... Libertarianism?” I discussed the damage that is being cause by one nation defining the borders of another without regard to preference, as well as the violence that has been unleashed against multiple targets so that those in power can maintain tight-fisted control of the situation. These in turn are exacerbated, according to some, by yet another problem caused by intervention—third party war-fighting.


The above article explains how the US supported Pakistan through the Cold War while supporting the strategic containment of communism. We were in essence trying to fight a war without actually fighting one, but enabling others to do so for us. Since then, those others have decided their goals do not match with ours. In return they have continued to support us enough to keep receiving aid, but have used previous help and continue to use recurring help to foster their own agenda, which is harmful to ours.

For this, how can we blame them? They are looking after their own good. The abhorrence of the acts come from the duplicity therein, not from the fact that another country is acting self-interestedly. But the issue is allowed to continue while the US uses third parties to help fight our own wars.

I am of the firm belief that anything worth doing is worth doing well, in the open, and with pride. For this reason alone I would ask the United States to fight her own wars. However, if that is not enough for some, then look at the consequences of what happens when we ask and enable others to do so for us. It never seems to turn out well in the end. We look back with disdain on our actions, such as the containment of a system that collapsed anyway, but never seem to learn. Each threat is new and somehow different from those that came before, making the action different enough this time to not be considered a mistake.

An alternative—non-intervention with a weak military—is equally disdained because we see what happens when a country must rely on the US for military support. The alternative to both of these, then, libertarian non-intervention policies with a strong military capable and willing to defend the country, seems the best option. Experience tells us this over and over again, yet we are loathe to loosen our own control over situations we do not like.

This is a difficult thing to do, though. Human nature would tempt any President to use a strong military to shape the world into one that he liked. That is why I only feel I can trust a President who believes in non-intervention, but why it is even more crucial for Congress to be strong and check the President. This happens so little in our current party-based politics that the remaining answer to solve all of these problems remains a strong military guided by a non-interventionist libertarian.


Anonymous said...

You say that the alternative is non-intervention, with a strong military at home ... and that this is Libertarian.

Do you mean that there should be a "standing army"? If so, can you explain how that is in any way a Libertarian stance?

I'm guessing that you mean voluntary militias, btw.

Anonymous said...

That is the lynchpin that most Libertarians refuse to understand. It is the only failure of Libertarianism. Defense. This is not 1776. Militias and Standing Armies are not equals.

Please, let us not mince words. In no way shape or form can a purely voluntarily taxed and recruited society every attempt to defend itself against a non-voluntarily taxed and drafted collective based nation.

Militias will never be able to afford the equipment to compete on the open battlefield with a determiend enemy.

The ONLY solution for the defense of a people is a large tax base and a standing full time army. Simply put you can not part-time your way to defense and you can not pay for it with charity from the populace.

Muskets and cannon can be paid for by a rich man raising a company (ala 1861). Jet fighters, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, transport aircraft...fuel...all expensive.

All anarchy based libertarianism will grant you is enslaved. You can not defense yourself or your communities like it was done in the 1800's.