Libertarianism and the balance between individual rights and anti-interventionism

[B-Fly]

I wanted to explore some ideas from the recent discussion in the Trump thread but it doesn't belong in a Trump thread so here's a new one.

Libertarian principles strongly promote individual/civil/human rights, including the right to be free from government coercion, the right to free expression, to privacy, to sexual freedom, to abortion, freedom from the death penalty, etc.

But then when it comes to international affairs, it's basically: "We condemn the governments and non-governmental political groups (e.g., ISIS) that are oppressing y'all. We feel your pain. But we're strongly committed to doing absolutely nothing about it."

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

So that's where I struggle a lot. How can one morally embrace the core principles of libertarianism and simultaneously commit to isolationism even in the face of genocide or other instances of rampant and draconian abuses of human/individual rights around the world. Is Libertarianism really so beholden to national borders when it's core principals are so anti-statist?

[DMT]

Humanitarian interventionism is the liberal equivalent of neo-conservatism. But replace "spreading democracy" with "preventing suffering".

[The Feral Slasher]

So that's where I struggle a lot. How can one morally embrace the core principles of libertarianism and simultaneously commit to isolationism even in the face of genocide or other instances of rampant and draconian abuses of human/individual rights around the world. Is Libertarianism really so beholden to national borders when it's core principals are so anti-statist?

I think your criticism of isolationism would carry a lot more weight with me if our interventions weren't all incredible failures in nearly every regard. Are Libya and Syria better off because of our involvement ? Do you have any examples of successes ?

[DMT]

I think your criticism of isolationism would carry a lot more weight with me if our interventions weren't all incredible failures in nearly every regard. Are Libya and Syria better off because of our involvement ? Do you have any examples of successes ?

Don't forget Iraq and most of Central America. Oh, and the former Yugoslavia. Oh, and Vietnam. I'm probably forgetting a few.

[baldgriff]

Here is the question - why is it so much easier to send resources overseas to take care of problems that we cant see, rather than using those resources to clean up the messes in our own backyard? Homeless vets, starving children, drug addicted parents.... all in our neighborhoods - and we keep spending millions helping various 3rd world countries.

Its a similar conversation regarding the difference between "foreign" missions vs "home" missions. "Foreign" missions is such a more "glamorous" thing because you are helping the poor indigent children in a poor 3rd world country.... "Home" missions just isnt glamorous at all - your just dealing with the lazy, the weak, the poor yadda yadda yadda.

Our country and its strength, wealth, defense and health - whether this makes me an ass or not - are much more important to me than what is happening in a random 3rd world country. Why? Because what happens to the people in this country more directly affects my life.

So while some may say - Libertarians dont want to do anything about the issues abroad - I say that we would prefer to ensure that our own backyard and all of the people in it are living lives where they are able to sleep in a bed, eat 3 meals, and live lives that are productive and meaningful to our society and lastly safely protected by our government.

I also agree that we should not be "spreading freedom" at the point of a gun. Freedom is a funny thing - when you have it you tend to take it for granted. It is not something that can be "given" to other countries. It is something that countries need to gain for themselves. We have tried to install "freedom" and "democracy" in other countries - and has been pointed out, not with much success.

[DMT]

That's an interesting take on libertarianism because they're for lower taxes and less social programs. Compassionate libertarianism is an oxymoron.

[baldgriff]

I dont believe in lots of social programs. I do believe that we "the community" should be taking care of those less fortunate from our own abilities - not the governments. So we should lower taxes and let people use their money how they best see it spent or used.

[DMT]

I dont believe in lots of social programs. I do believe that we "the community" should be taking care of those less fortunate from our own abilities - not the governments. So we should lower taxes and let people use their money how they best see it spent or used.

We're the richest country in the world yet 40 million Americans, including 12 million children are "food insecure,* meaning they are often forced to skip meals, eat less at meals, buy cheap non-nutritious food and/or feed their children but not themselves." Yea sounds like our community is taking care of their own. If you think that number would decrease by cutting social programs, then you're just delusional.

https://whyhunger.org/just-the-facts/

[TranaGreg]

But what happens to those people when the community doesn't take care of those who need help???

We have a women's drop-in shelter close to us. We've donated a fair bit of stuff to them over the years. Every time I walk by or go in to donate, I encounter volunteers - my observation is that they tend to be the bleeding heart liberal types ... I don't see a lot of libertarians or right-wingers there. They're always overflowing - there is simply way more need than resources to help.

[The Feral Slasher]

I think your criticism of isolationism would carry a lot more weight with me if our interventions weren't all incredible failures in nearly every regard. Are Libya and Syria better off because of our involvement ? Do you have any examples of successes ?

if you are around, I'd enjoy hearing a response

[B-Fly]

I think your criticism of isolationism would carry a lot more weight with me if our interventions weren't all incredible failures in nearly every regard. Are Libya and Syria better off because of our involvement ? Do you have any examples of successes ?

I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

WWI
WWII
Korea
Kuwait
Haiti
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan? (debatable)
Kurdistan? (debatable)

But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.

[The Feral Slasher]

I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

WWI
WWII
Korea
Kuwait
Haiti
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan? (debatable)
Kurdistan? (debatable)

But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.

If Afghanistan is success I don't want to see failure. Anyway, I appreciate your response and I'll reply when I have some time.

[The Feral Slasher]

I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

WWI
WWII
Korea
Kuwait
Haiti
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan? (debatable)
Kurdistan? (debatable)

But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.

I was asking more about military, but I'd agree non-military "intervention" is also a consideration and probably much more successful.

[Ken]

Every time I walk by or go in to donate, I encounter volunteers - my observation is that they tend to be the bleeding heart liberal types ... I don't see a lot of libertarians or right-wingers there.

I don't doubt your experience, I think this situation is regional though. For example in the bible-belt, a large portion of those volunteers are church groups which *tend* to lean right.

I would say that in general it's more left than right universally. But I'm not sure that even matters in the bigger question being addressed here.

[B-Fly]

If Afghanistan is success I don't want to see failure. Anyway, I appreciate your response and I'll reply when I have some time.

I think the removal of the Taliban ultimately benefited the Afghan people, although I agree it's terribly hard to justify with any cost-benefit analysis given the costs of the ongoing conflict to American and Afghan lives. Our interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq also did help the Kurdish people in both countries, despite the broader strategic and operational failures. That's why I put those two with question marks, but I can accept that the overall cost-to-benefit ratio is a tough sell, so when you reply, focus on the other ones I listed, lol.