Libertarian Party and foreign policy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ryan.Samples, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Ryan.Samples

    Ryan.Samples
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    In another thread, we read:

    These comments seem to invite a discussion about what the LP considers "a sane foreign policy." Thoughts, anyone?
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Correct me if I am wrong, but they don't believe in supporting Israel do they?

    That was my big beef with Ron Paul.

    But perhaps a Libertarian can enlighten us.

    On the domestic front, I see several states passed legalized recreational MJ.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    The words "Libertarian" and "sane foreign policy" seem to be oxymoronic.

    I think their operative phrase is "avoid foreign entanglements", a phrase borrowed from George Washington and sufficiently vague to mean just about anything. In practical terms I think it means to let other countries do whatever they want so long as they don't bother us.

    They are against all economic foreign aid and also military interventionism. They believe the U.S. should not be the "policeman of the world", without defining what that means. They oppose a military draft. I believe they would not impose any immigration rules whatsoever.
     
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    They oppose all foreign economic aid and want to "avoid foreign entanglements" which I take to mean no alliances, no treaties, so I would guess they would not support Israel. But who knows? The Libertarian Party is not one to strictly define their positions.

    That would be OK with the Libertarian Party.
     
  5. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    That was the biggie with me and Ron Paul. He sounded like a kook when it came to foreign policy. I really appreciated what Santorum said to him during one of the debates.

    But for the most part, he made more sense than a lot of the others.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Libertarian Party platform 2012

    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

    3.1 National Defense

    We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

    I do not think they focus on Israel in particular, but staying out of other nation's business in general.

    Our foreign relations should be guided by the Constitution, through treaties ratified by the Senate. No where is there any Constitutional authority for a UN concept. My problem with the Libertarian Party is not their foreign policy, but their legalization of drugs and other moral issues.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >I think their operative phrase is "avoid foreign entanglements", a phrase borrowed from George Washington and sufficiently vague to mean just about anything. In practical terms I think it means to let other countries do whatever they want so long as they don't bother us.

    It is much clearer than most of the NT and how the NT is interpreted on BB.

    I don't care what other countries do as long as they leave us alone. You Republicans are either inconsistent or goofy. One world government is OK as long as the one world is controlled by the US? We should pull out of the UN but maintain foreign bases?
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Okay folks I'm back.

    I believe SN is on the right track to a sane foreign policy.

    Lady Eagle said . . .

    I don't know if I'm the one who should try to explain this as I do not consider myself a strict libertarian. But I'll give it a shot.

    Ron Paul isn't for or against supporting any nation including Israel. I watched the debates in which RP took part and the question of Israel always seemed to come up. But the way the question was asked was kind of sneaky and underhanded.

    It was something like, "Dr. Paul if were you president would you support Israel?" Or "Dr. Paul if you were president would you cut off aid to Israel?"

    No matter how he answered he'd look like he was anti Israel and I believe that's why the question was always put to him like that. They were loaded questions designed to make Ron Paul look like he was against supporting Israel.

    There was never a question like this in the debates RP took part in, "Dr. Paul what are your thoughts on foreign aid?" or "Dr. Paul if you were president how would you decide which countries the United States would give foreign aid too?"

    What Ron Paul is against is the unconstitutional use of foreign aid as it stands today but he was only given a few seconds in these debates to explain it.

    What is today's foreign aid?

    Below is from the Tenth Amendment center.

    Foreign aid is a system by which the American taxpayers are forced, in the name of national security or defense of the “free world,” or charity, or whatever the politicians tell us, to subsidize US export companies and prop up client states that are often ruled by dictators.

    Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

    Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    There is no authorization to pay for spying in Mexico. There is no authorization to prop up dictators in places like Pakistan with your money. There is no authorization to spend your money on “military assistance” for other countries. There is no authorization to funnel money through the CIA to support regime changes. The Constitution was written in plain English – there is nothing there which authorizes the federal government to take your money and give it to foreign governments. For any reason.


    It was never a matter of whether Ron Paul opposed foreign aid to Israel though the corporate media and his political opponents worked hard to make it look that way. The plain truth of it is . . .


    Congressman Ron Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries on constitutional, practical, and moral grounds. Constitutionally, Congressman Paul notes that the document that created our country does not grant permission to Congress or the President to authorize funds to be taken from the national treasure and given to foreign countries. He also cites the statements of some of the founding fathers who warned the US to steer clear of foreign entanglements.

    On a moral ground, Congressman Paul opposes foreign aid as it takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in foreign countries. Congressman Paul notes that the morality of taking money from people of the United States to be given to those in other countries is not moral or benevolent, especially when the US does not have enough money to pay for it's own needs.

    From a practical standpoint, Congressman Paul notes that the amount of foreign that actually reaches those who need it is dramatically reduced after the numerous levels of bureaucracy within each government is paid for the distribution and any corrupt politician then takes their cut.

    Congressman Paul notes that because foreign aid comes from governments, it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. As examples of this, he cites the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Millennium Challenge Account. He stated that the National Endowment for Democracy funds are usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins "democratic" elections. This result is not beneficial to those seeking a truly democratic state. As for the Millennium Challenge Account, which sends U.S. aid to countries that meet U.S.-determined economic reform criteria, Congressman Paul notes that countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.

    Congressman Paul has spoken about how the use of foreign aid creates instability and promotes an anti-American view. He cites examples such as Egypt, where the US was spending billions of dollars to prop up a regime that was opposed by a vast majority of the people there. He notes that for the money we spent there, the US received a nation of people who opposed our involvement and are now untrusting of the US. Congressman Paul notes that the instability and corruption that foreign aid fosters only serves to discredit the US and lower our moral standing in the world.

    The way I understand it today's foreign aid is just another form of socialism. The government steals money from us to give to others. If you are opposed to socialism shouldn't you also be opposed to today's foreign aid?
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I sometimes see myself as a libertarian/Republican or vice versa. I want the government to be as small and as unobtrusive as possible particularly the Federal Government.

    As for foreign policy, the responsibility of the Federal Government:

    1. I believe in maintaining a military second to none. Defense of the country is one of the few Constitutional duties of the Feds.

    2,. I believe we should withdraw our troops from most of the foreign countries where they are, in particular Europe.

    3. I would leave the middle east and muslim nations there alone unless absolutely necessary for our security. For example, it was proper for us to go into Afghanistan and kick the Taliban and al Queda around but we should have withdrawn completely 10 years ago. Iraq was a mistake. Those people have been killing each other for centuries, they will continue. Islam in my opinion is a religion of death!

    4. I would consider China enemy #1 and consider being more friendly to India. They could provide a counter5force to China and a deterrent to Pakistan.

    5. I will quit for awhile!
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Some excellent thoughts there OR!
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Are you still there Ryan?
     
  12. Ryan.Samples

    Ryan.Samples
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. I was largely waiting for professed Libertarians to respond. But now that you have, I can't review it all at the moment. Will come back at you soon, hopefully tomorrow. Thanks!
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128


    Actually I'm more of a paleoconstitutionalist than a libertarian but I guess I do sorta stand out as being a bit radical in a field full of neoconservative control freaks either way. You aren't going to find any libertarians on this board. The idea of individual freedom and personal liberty are like garlic to vampires or silver bullets to werewolves to the majority of folks on this board though they'll use these ideas to justify an insane foreign policy of never ending illegal immoral and unconstitutional wars on those they have been conditioned to hate and/or fear the most.
     
    #13 poncho, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2012
  14. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of political philosophy, there is one standard and one standard only for governing the United States of America, and that is the Constitution. It is not how Israel was governed in 1000 BC. It is not a model for a socialist state. It is not a nation that compromises its sovereign authority to a collection of nations.

    I can count our true allies on two hands, Israel, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, and to a lesser extent France, Germany, Japan and some Eastern European countries. According to the Constitution to support Israel, we negotiate a treaty with Israel that is ratified by the Senate. That goes for the other countries listed also. Since Muslim countries hate the existence of this nation, the Constitutional solution is no treaty with any of them. That implies no diplomatic or business presence.

    There might be a provision for limited contact with countries like China, India, etc that serve our economy. There is no purpose for any contact or trade with any Muslim country, North Korea, Iran, hostile southeast Asia nations, and for the most part, Russia. Some of the nations out of the old Soviet block could prove to be valuable allies.
     
  15. Ryan.Samples

    Ryan.Samples
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do I gather then that those of you with Libertarian-leaning convictions would have opposed the Lend-Lease program in 1941, before the US entered the war?
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I believe SN already answered that question.

    "Our foreign relations should be guided by the Constitution, through treaties ratified by the Senate."

    How would you describe our current foreign policy Ryan?
     
  17. Ryan.Samples

    Ryan.Samples
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the scholarly or academic term is "hot mess."
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I was hoping you'd give us a little more detailed analysis. How do you feel about funding and arming Salafists in Libya and Syria while we're in the middle of waging a "war on terror"?
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    The only foreign policy the libertarian party has is the absence of one.
     
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Our foreign relations should be guided by the Constitution, through treaties ratified by the Senate."

    This is like saying, "I only believe the Bible," meaningless. There are are 100 or so Baptist denominations that "only believe the Bible" and everyone believes something different.

    In the US, the Constitution "says" whatever case law and legal precedent "says."
     

Share This Page

Loading...