Posted on 06/11/2014 6:23:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Both libertarians and conservatives want to keep America safe. We differ on how best to do that. Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good. We want less military spending.
Some conservatives respond to that by calling us isolationists, but we're not. I want to participate in the world; I just don't want to run it. I'm glad Americans trade with other countries -- trade both goods and people. It's great we sell foreigners our music, movies, ideas, etc. And through dealing with them, we also learn from what they do best.
On my TV show this week, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton will tell me why my libertarian skepticism about the importance of a "strong military presence" is "completely irrelevant to foreign policy decision-making."
Bolton thinks it's dangerous and provocative for America to appear militarily weak. He supported the Iraq War and says that if Iran were close to getting nuclear weapons, the U.S should attack. "I will go to my grave trying to prevent every new country we can find from getting nuclear weapons," because if they do, "it's going to be a very dangerous world."
He criticizes Presidents Barack Obama's and George W. Bush's failed attempts at negotiation with Iran, "negotiation based on the delusion from the get-go that Iran was ever serious about potentially giving up its nuclear weapon program."
That kind of talk makes Bolton sound like a hard-headed realist. Who wants to be naive like Bush or Obama? But hawks like Bolton ignore parts of reality, too.
They are quick and correct to point out the danger of Iran going nuclear. They are not as quick to talk about the fact that Iran has a population three times the size of Iraq's -- and the Iraq War wasn't as smooth or short as then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others assured us it would be.
If it's realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it's also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes new enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.
I asked Bolton if he thought the Vietnam War was a good intervention. "Obviously, the way it played out, it was not," he said, but, "it's always easy after the fact to second-guess."
Bolton also acknowledges that the Iraq War did not go well, but then adds, "Where mistakes were made was after the military campaign." The U.S. was unprepared for the civil war that broke out. The U.S. also failed to turn utilities and other state-run companies in Iraq over to the private sector, maintaining poorly run monopolies on energy production and other essential services, often squandering billions of dollars.
It might be seen as a harsh lesson in the importance of planning for the aftermath of toppling a bad regime. But we libertarians wonder: Why assume government will do better next time?
Occasionally government acknowledges mistakes in domestic policy -- but that doesn't mean it then becomes more efficient. It usually just spends more to try, and fail, to fix the problem. It's the nature of government. Politicians don't face the competitive incentives that force other people to make hard decisions.
Candidate Obama garnered support by criticizing Bush for costing money and lives through a protracted stay in Iraq. But that didn't stop Obama from putting more money and troops into Afghanistan.
In his first term alone, Obama spent about three times as much in Afghanistan as Bush did in two terms. Did we win hearts and minds? I don't think so. The Taliban may still retake the country.
Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.
Russell Kirk had a positive view of conservatives.
“Kirk’s view of “classical liberals” is positive though; he agrees with them on “ordered liberty” as they make “common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism.”[14]”
His view of libertarians was extremely negative...
“He called the libertarian movement “an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating.” He said a line of division exists between believers in “some sort of transcendent moral order” and “utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct.” He included libertarians in the latter category.[12] Kirk, therefore, questioned the “fusionism” between libertarians and traditional conservatives that marked much of post-World War II conservatism in the United States.[13]”
I like a lot of Libertarian positions and most conservatives would agree with small government and libertarian views on economics and the free market.
What caused me to bail on the Lib Party was the position on abortion and Iran
Abortion is clearly the taking of an innocent life, but the Libs say you have a right to chose to do that.
On Iran they didn’t see the threat of the bomb and say it’s Iran’s right.
Some of the anti-war on drug statements here and comments that Libs are potheads are ridiculous. There is a difference between the right to do something and doing it, but the drug addict comments keep on coming. Plus look at the results of pouring billions down the WOD rat hole. Give it up already.
The best solutions to me is that each side adopt what they have in common and defeat the democrats.
Haha!! Good one!
And true that.
“... I’d rather fight on someone else’s turf, rather than my own...”
Absolutely. If they’re rattling sabers, take the saber to THEM.
“...If Hitler had been done in early,...”
Would make one hell of a ‘What If...” alternative history/fiction story, wouldn’t it?
Hitler taken out in 1935 or ‘36... by a German patriot’s bullet.
One can only wonder how different things would have been.
Neocon, when used by critics, usually means “Jew”.
A success at what? People kept drinking, and Organized Crime gained much prominence and strength.
I would support interventions to kill our enemies, say bomb Iran's intelligence offices and terrorist training camps.
Our enemies need to fear the long arm of American Justice.
No more invasions without victory.
I don’t agree with the statement. People need to be responsible for their personal behavior both legally and in private and it doesn’t mean I don’t support laws against society for drug use or other criminal activity!
As for personal responsibility if a person chooses to go down that path then they should be on their own with no government safety net programs available to them. That means no funding for abortions or drug treatment programs.
That’s just my take
Frank Meyer the onetime editorial contributor to National Review and guru of what he called “fusionism” (a bridge between libertarianism and Kirkian traditionalism.)
The quadrant system presupposes some level of government. Even Objectivists want government to play some role, if only to ensure equality of of opportunity.
Anarchists, true anarchists who oppose any governmemt whatsoever, exist outside the quadrant.
Yes, and we should, but the absolutists (on both sides, but mainly on the libertarian side) will never allow that to happen.
Definitely. I am a student of Austrian economics, myself. (Taught it in college, but it was essentially what I had always believed.) On economic issues, I'd probably qualify as essentially a libertarian.
The funny thing is that the guy didn’t understand it and tried to explain to me that America wan’t involved. I told him that was precisely why we would be the winners — we sit by and let Enemy 1 destroy Enemy 2 and vice versa.
That’s the point. I made it biased on purpose.
Just like the libertarian-centric one you described.
Rand Paul is a man with no principles other than his own selfish interests. His namesake (Ayn Rand) was an atheist narcissist philosopher who literally promoted self interest as a religious principle.
Rand Paul wants to be President for all the wrong reasons. Just like Obama. That is why pinning him down on controversial issues is like pinning jello to a wall.
If Rand Paul is the GOP nominee, I'm either going to sit it out or vote 3rd party. We don't need a GOP version of Obama. We need a man who is running because he loves his country, not because he loves himself.
In my view Fascism isn’t really a form of Socialism. It’s a peer of Socialism, with both being forms of Statism.
But yes, many US government programs are Fascist. If you ever want to have fun with Libs, start by using the term “Third Position Economics” ... Get them to readily agree to the worthiness of the concept, then spring the revelation that it’s better known as Fascism on them.
IMHO, Libs are more acclimated, and conditioned better to respond to the charge that they’re Socialists or even Communists than they are to being called Fascist.
Who says that society can’t have laws? I don’t want to legalize heroin but if the persons decides to partake then their on their own and take the good with the bad.
As for the “good of society” laws such as if you want to wear or not seatbelts or helmets and something bad happens tough nuggies. Let the free market dictate the outcome. For instance if you crash and are wearing a seatbelt or helmet and you sustain injury than the insurance company can payout the benefit based the level of personal safety that was utilized and vice versa...
“...the guy didn’t understand it and tried...”
Probably just didn’t register. That happens... I have sudden attacks of “Density” sometimes too, haha!!!
But one does wonder how different the world would be if we’d helped to subtly “influence” the rift between the ChiComs and the Bolsheviks to the point of armed conflict between them, and then sat it out while they wiped each other out.
There was some open fighting between Red Russia and Red China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
back in 1969.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.