Libertarian view on military involvement in foreign conflicts

[Nakura Chambers]

I recently did some reading on how libertarians would respond to international conflicts and crises. I found their suggestion rather interesting, as it's a stark departure from both current American policy and the policy proposed by "pacifists." Here was what I read:

Question:
What would be a libertarian society’s response to foreign nations’ requests for military assistance? (This assumes that the requests are valid and not influenced by such things as oil…)

Answer:
Individuals in a libertarian society could respond as they wish. Pacifists could decline to contribute. Supporters could raise money to pay for sending troops overseas. Young people could volunteer for military service in that country. Non-combatants could volunteer their time to help with the paperwork and training that accompanies any war effort. Everyone could give or decline to give the support they felt was appropriate. Instead of Congress deciding what the American people would contribute, each individual would decide for him or herself.

Source: http://libertariananswers.com/what-w...ary-assistance

Now I certainly don't support such a system, but I think it's an interesting concept. What do you think of the concept?


Note: I do support lifting the ban on allowing Americans from enlisting in foreign militaries and rebel groups.

[Sunseeker]

Completely unworkable. You would essentially have foreign agents working within your borders who are potentially aiding war crimes or attacking national allies. It would cause a shitfest internationally no different than allowing an NGO terrorist orgnization to operate within your borders, while claiming "oh no, we didn't do it, that guy did." Which is a bullshit line because legally, silence is consent. No government could get away with allowing their citizens to do that without ending up being responsible for them. The "sovereign citizen" idea is stupid.

[smelltheglove]

Note: I do support lifting the ban on allowing Americans from enlisting in foreign militaries and rebel groups.

this would be a horrible idea. the ban doesnt really stop anybody that wants to do either of those things. it's merely a means of saying "this person doesnt represent america". keep in mind that groups like al qaeda and other terrorist organizations consider themselves "rebels" and "freedom fighters", and we have gone to war with countries we feel are supporting them by tolerance, and this would make us no different

[Spectral]

This is a classic example of how I like libertarian ideals, but think most libertarians are idiots.

[RohanV]

It's happened in the past. For example, George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War as a volunteer. Right now, this is happening in Syria. Volunteers from other countries are joining either side, without the formal approval or disapproval of their governments.

And of course, there are formal mercenaries and mercenary companies which can be hired.

It actually happens a fair bit in internal revolutions or civil conflicts. It is less common in nation vs. nation wars. Probably because neither nation wants loose cannons running around out of their control.

[Kalis]

Note: I do support lifting the ban on allowing Americans from enlisting in foreign militaries and rebel groups.

You're okay with US citizens joining Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, FARC, Real IRA, etc.?

[DEATHETERNAL]

If the government had to do a Kickstarter every time it wanted to do something, anarchy would ensue. Even if a government Kickstarter was needed only for military action, it would result in military action being taken based on popularity instead of need to engage in military action (not saying its entirely based on need to engage in military action now).

[Endus]

The difficulty is that that webpage does not describe libertarian ideals. It describes Libertarian Party ideals. They are not the same thing. The Libertarian Party of the United States is a very specific, and not particularly libertarian, worldview. When it suits them, they swing to libertarian ideals, when it doesn't, they swing closer to the traditionally conservative ideals they mostly support. They essentially end up being slightly less pro-military Republican-Lite.

Small-l libertarianism has two core principles; non-aggression, and personal liberty. Everything else depends on those two, and beyond those two, everything is up in the air. That particular answer is contrary to the non-aggression principle; you cannot allow citizens to engage in private aggression as a statement of their personal liberty; that requires contradicting the principle of non-aggression. That doesn't mean pacificism, since defense is still absolutely allowed. Defense, however, is defense; not pre-emptive attack.

"Smaller government" is an additional concept that has a lot of resonance for most libertarians, but that doesn't mean government reduction at all costs. For instance, I am a social libertarian. This means I believe in a strong social welfare system, for the benefit of all citizens. Public healthcare systems, for instance, tend to be more efficient than private ones, in terms of cost for the healthcare they can provide, so I support public healthcare, like we have in Canada (which could be improved, of course, but I speak of concept). A lot of people use the term "socialist" as if it were a dirty word, but there's nothing about social programs that are incompatible with libertarian ideals. They work quite will with both the other core principles of the political viewpoint.

[smelltheglove]

You're okay with US citizens joining Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, FARC, Real IRA, etc.?

we would be forced to invade ourselves, thus totally justifying the 2nd amendment!

[Prokne]

Now I certainly don't support such a system, but I think it's an interesting concept. What do you think of the concept?

Note: I do support lifting the ban on allowing Americans from enlisting in foreign militaries and rebel groups.

The problem is that anyone joining a non-government military organization like the one described would not be protected by the Geneva Convention. If you get captured, you have no rights as a prisoner of war and they can do whatever they want with you.

[ishootblanks]

I recently did some reading on how libertarians would respond to international conflicts and crises. I found their suggestion rather interesting, as it's a stark departure from both current American policy and the policy proposed by "pacifists." Here was what I read:



Now I certainly don't support such a system, but I think it's an interesting concept. What do you think of the concept?


Note: I do support lifting the ban on allowing Americans from enlisting in foreign militaries and rebel groups.

I think this is a terrible idea and will never work.. and this is why true libertarianism can work fine in the free market.. and social aspects of society.. but there still needs to be order..

[Nakura Chambers]

You're okay with US citizens joining Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, FARC, Real IRA, etc.?

Freedom of association.

[Bakis]

I'm just struck of how polarized it has to be. The need to catalog something based on what one should/should not support regardless of ones own beliefs is pretty stupid in itself.

[ishootblanks]

Freedom of association.

in this instance it should be treason

[Sunseeker]

Freedom of association.

Your freedom to do whatever you damn well please ends when that freedom impinges on the safety, health, and freedom of others to live a life free from the fear that their neighbor is going to kill them because they wear the wrong symbol on their neck. That's the whole point of a system of laws, to ensure people have maximized liberty and aren't simply doing whatever they damn well please with no regard for who it harms.

If you are free to associate with whoever you want, then the government is equally free to kick your ass to the curb because your actions are detrimental to the greater society.

There is no reason for people to tolerate dangerous behavior in order to allow such a miniscule gain in liberty as this.

Now, on the other hand, if they leave the country, then sure, they can join those groups, but don't expect to be let back in or allowed to retain citizenship. That's absolutely asinine.

[Jackmoves]

Well in some circumstances I find it acceptable, Spanish civil war was one such fight, people from all over Europe(+USA, Canada etc) traveled there to fight Franco and Hitler... but in general, no. Also, organizing that sounds like a real clusterfuck, you need a peace time organization that doesn't take years to get on the road.

[GreatOak]

This is a classic example of how I like libertarian ideals, but think most libertarians are idiots.

It's because most libertarians aren't libertarians. It pisses me off because I consider myself to be a real libertarian.

- - - Updated - - -

The difficulty is that that webpage does not describe libertarian ideals. It describes Libertarian Party ideals. They are not the same thing. The Libertarian Party of the United States is a very specific, and not particularly libertarian, worldview. When it suits them, they swing to libertarian ideals, when it doesn't, they swing closer to the traditionally conservative ideals they mostly support. They essentially end up being slightly less pro-military Republican-Lite.

Small-l libertarianism has two core principles; non-aggression, and personal liberty. Everything else depends on those two, and beyond those two, everything is up in the air. That particular answer is contrary to the non-aggression principle; you cannot allow citizens to engage in private aggression as a statement of their personal liberty; that requires contradicting the principle of non-aggression. That doesn't mean pacificism, since defense is still absolutely allowed. Defense, however, is defense; not pre-emptive attack.

"Smaller government" is an additional concept that has a lot of resonance for most libertarians, but that doesn't mean government reduction at all costs. For instance, I am a social libertarian. This means I believe in a strong social welfare system, for the benefit of all citizens. Public healthcare systems, for instance, tend to be more efficient than private ones, in terms of cost for the healthcare they can provide, so I support public healthcare, like we have in Canada (which could be improved, of course, but I speak of concept). A lot of people use the term "socialist" as if it were a dirty word, but there's nothing about social programs that are incompatible with libertarian ideals. They work quite will with both the other core principles of the political viewpoint.

B-BUT S-S-SOMALIA!!

[Nakura Chambers]

Your freedom to do whatever you damn well please ends when that freedom impinges on the safety, health, and freedom of others to live a life free from the fear that their neighbor is going to kill them because they wear the wrong symbol on their neck. That's the whole point of a system of laws, to ensure people have maximized liberty and aren't simply doing whatever they damn well please with no regard for who it harms.

If you are free to associate with whoever you want, then the government is equally free to kick your ass to the curb because your actions are detrimental to the greater society.

There is no reason for people to tolerate dangerous behavior in order to allow such a miniscule gain in liberty as this.

Now, on the other hand, if they leave the country, then sure, they can join those groups, but don't expect to be let back in or allowed to retain citizenship. That's absolutely asinine.

So punish those who violate the safety, health and freedom of your citizens. It's not illegal to join domestic extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. You can't punish someone for joining an organization.

[Skroe]

Pretty moot point.

The Bi-Partisan American Foreign Policy and Defense Establishment is in no way shape or form libertarian. If you're Libertarian, you typically get involved in other parts of government than foreign policy.

And more to the point, the only way you get into the very tight knit, sometimes familial, Foreign Policy community is by connections and positions (internship, fellowship, chair) at one of the handful of major think tanks or universities.

The Establishment rarely agrees on things. For some, every Middle Eastern issue focuses on Israel for some very practical reasons. For others, a more comprehensive regional approach is desirable. Beliefs in general are all over the map and hard to tack down. This diversity is very good for the country

But a libertarian viewpoint is extreme fringe, and it's making no inroads. It's hard to be a libertarian and get a position in a field where no one hires anyone who believes that rubbish.