Zeal For Truth

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

Yesterday, I dealt with a question that presumed libertarian foreign policy is too right-wing (isolationist). Ironically, we get criticized from the other side too.

Is libertarian foreign policy in line with the Democrats or even pacifism? / You libertarians are just like those treasonous anti-war weenie liberals! Go USA!
Just like with isolationism, it is possible to be a libertarian and a pacifist - but it is not required, or even a mainstream view in libertarianism. Most libertarians take the non-aggression principle to mean that it is perfectly legitimate for free people’s to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against aggressions initiated against their person or property. In fact, libertarians have quite a reputation as gun-nuts and vigilantes.

However, most people get libertarians and democrats confused on foreign policy because both groups have been vocally opposed to the current invasion of Iraq. However, their reasons are radically different and stem from a completely different set of principles.

Well, maybe that is a bit misleading - Democrats generally have no principles. They usually just look across the aisle and see what Republicans do and try and support the opposite. In fact, democrats generally support wars and nation building - just look at the last administration.

Libertarians have a few different ways to determine if a war is defensive or not. There needs to be a specific threat or aggression that has taken place. None of this preemptive war - which presumes guilt until proven innocent (after a bunch of people are killed of course - sorry about that). There needs to be a defined enemy (the one who did the specific aggression) and also conditions for victory.

A libertarian war would also not require forced taxation or conscription to wage it - the threat would be so obvious that people would voluntarily defend themselves. Consider a brief analogy:

My neighbour John claims that my other neighbour Jack ransacked my house and stole my TV. He showed me his video surveillance and it is clear that Jack did this. Moreover, he heard Jack talking about how he was going to begin stealing other TV’s in the neighbourhood. I am going to go and get my TV back, by george.

But what if my TV is not stolen, and John just tells me he has a” gut feeling” that Jack is going to steal it. John tells me that Jack looks like a shady character,  and that we should TP his house and key his car to make sure he doesn’t mess with us. John also makes some of the neighbour kids stand around Jack’s house to prevent him from going to the grocery store.

Democrats and republicans basically have very few rules about what justifies a war. Both parties are making threats to Iran simply because they might, possibly, in the future, in theory, maybe one day, thought about, for a few seconds enriching uranium that could be used for weapons, which also someday might be used against Israel. We’re literally going to blockade Iran, preparing to starve their people and commit an act of war against them when they have done nothing to us.

The libertarian response to Iran’s existence, would be the same as any neighbour. We’d trade with them culturally and economically if it benefits us. And otherwise leave them alone and expect them to leave us alone. Libertarians reject the idea that we must presume guilt on others just because it is easier or more convenient.

I suspect if this country ever were credibly threatened or attacked, the libertarians with their guns and hyperactive love of freedom, would be the first ones to fire shots back.