Is it possible to be pro foreign interventions and a Libertarian at the same time?

[Liberty Star]

Is it possible to be pro foreign interventions, pro pre emptive attacks on countries that do not attack us, pro elective wars and be a Libertarian at the same time?

I do not believe that a person can be a neocon and libertarian at the same time. Having libertarian mindset is way more than just loving porn, pot, abortion or same sex activities. It includes a firm belief in certain liberties and rights for all people and not just for people of ones own race.

What is your take?

 

[low preference guy]

Is it possible to be pro foreign interventions, pro pre emptive attacks on countries that do not attack us, pro elective wars and be a Libertarian at the same time?

I do not believe that a person can be a neocon and libertarian at the same time. Having libertarian mindset is way more than just loving porn, pot, abortion or same sex activities. It includes a firm belief in certain liberties and rights for all people and not just for people of ones own race.

What is your take?

i would say one can be a libertarian if one attacks for defensive purposes. but if one attacks to "spread democracy", then one is not a libertarian.

 

[BuddyRey]

I agree. Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is the outright rejection of coercion as a viable engine for political and social change. Libertarian philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with the initiation of violence.

 

[Liberty Star]

i would say one can be a libertarian if one attacks for defensive purposes. but if one attacks to "spread democracy", then one is not a libertarian.

Question was about offensive pre-emptive attacks on countries that do not attack us.

No libertarian is for not defending ourselves when attacked.

 

[nate895]

The only time I'd consider you a Libertarian (I'm not a Libertarian, nor do I call myself one, but I do agree on their war position) if you supported preemptive war only in circumstances of a clear and imminent threat. That is still a defensive war. If you are a Libertarian or a true conservative, then you are only for defensive war, which can sometimes include limited preemptive military action.

 

[Paleo]

NEO libs - - they exist.

 

[low preference guy]

Question was about offensive pre-emptive attacks on countries that do not attack us.

No libertarian is for not defending ourselves when attacked.

i consider Schiff a libertarian. so i consider attacking nuclear facilities of a country we consider hostile ok.

 

[Liberty Star]

The only time I'd consider you a Libertarian (I'm not a Libertarian, nor do I call myself one, but I do agree on their war position) if you supported preemptive war only in circumstances of a clear and imminent threat. That is still a defensive war. If you are a Libertarian or a true conservative, then you are only for defensive war, which can sometimes include limited preemptive military action.

That is exactly what Bush told us before invading Iraq, with mushroom clouds imagery and all. I'm curious did that satisfy your threshold of clear and imminenet threat to our way of living? That is, did you support US invasion of Iraq?

 

[Liberty Star]

i consider Schiff a libertarian. so i consider attacking nuclear facilities of a country we consider hostile ok.

If it turns out that Israel, North Korea, Jordan or some other country took a hostile action like Lavon affair or USS Liberty or some other hostile action, by this logic if he supported US attack on Israeli, NK, Jordanian nuke facilities, would you support such an attack?

BTW, does he support US attack on North Korea nuke facilities? I haven't kept up with his FP views.

 

[nate895]

That is exactly what Bush told us before invading Iraq, with mushroom clouds imagery and all. I'm curious did that satisfy your threshold of clear and imminenet threat to our way of living? That is, did you support US invasion of Iraq?

I was 10 when we invaded Iraq. I supported the war because my parents did. Neither of them support the war now and think it was mistake in the first place. I can barely remember the 2000 Election besides "Bush is the lesser of two evils, we should root for him!"

 

[Kludge]

No libertarian is for not defending ourselves when attacked.

Who is "ourselves"? I wouldn't necessarily declare war if USG property is attacked so long as they are only attacking the government and not its people. Hard to imagine such a war these days, though.

As far as any rigid definition of what's libertarian - I think it'd be a tough sell calling yourself a libertarian while using any energy at all to promote the oppression of foreign peoples while US citizens are oppressed. If foreign nations are oppressing people in the US and people promote fighting back, I don't think that'd be un-libertarian. Supporting pre-emptive war is a deal-breaker for my support and I'd be moderately offended if the person called themself a libertarian, enough that I'd be encouraged to actively work against the person.

 

[low preference guy]

If it turns out that Israel, North Korea, Jordan or some other country took a hostile action like Lavon affair or USS Liberty or some other hostile action, by this logic if he supported US attack on Israeli, NK, Jordanian nuke facilities, would you support such an attack?

BTW, does he support US attack on North Korea nuke facilities? I haven't kept up with his FP views.

you can't attack anyone once they have nukes, unless you're suicidal, because they will attack you back. schiff supports an attack on iran's nuclear facilities when they are in the process of developing them if there is evidence they are developing nukes.

 

[Liberty Star]

I agree. Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is the outright rejection of coercion as a viable engine for political and social change. Libertarian philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with the initiation of violence.

And I agree too.

Well put.

 

[Liberty Star]

you can't attack anyone once they have nukes, unless you're suicidal, because they will attack you back. schiff supports an attack on iran's nuclear facilities when they are in the process of developing them if there is evidence they are developing nukes.

So Iran will not attack US then, right?

How do you explain these Iran war drums march then among some neocon circles.

 

[low preference guy]

So Iran will not attack US then, right?

How do you explain these Iran war drums march then among some neocon circles.

no, because their facilities will be attacked when they are in the process of developing nukes. so they won't be able to nuke us, if the attack is successful.

 

[Liberty Star]

no, because their facilities will be attacked when they are in the process of developing nukes.

By whom?

And you are incorrect, there will be no Israeli attack on Iran in forseeable future. It's all bark lasting over 5 years.

 

[low preference guy]

By whom?

i thought the context was schiff's foreign policy.

so the answer is by the united states if they adopt schiff's foreign policy.

 

[farrar]

I was 10 when we invaded Iraq. I supported the war because my parents did. Neither of them support the war now and think it was mistake in the first place. I can barely remember the 2000 Election besides "Bush is the lesser of two evils, we should root for him!"

I was the same about (a little younger), but my parents were very republican oriented. I remember later on when entering middle school, I began to quitely question the gospel of the "republican" and their premtive wars. I began watching the satistics, and the party I thought was for capitolism, the Reagan I was told to love, was increasingly portrayed to me as lies. All I could tell for myself, was despite their stance on civil liberties, I was no democrat. I struggled with my belief system probably until my freshman year of highschool. Though I didn't know it yet, it was very libertarian esque (however I only knew the lesser of two evils and still had some internal conflict). By the end of my junior year (this year, though I am going to college in 12 days thanks to dual enrollment for achievers ) I had found ron paul and the libertaran party. I was so amazed when I found out people actually believed in these common sense issues.

 

[nate895]

I was the same about (a little younger), but my parents were very republican oriented. I remember later on when entering middle school, I began to quitely question the gospel of the "republican" and their premtive wars. I began watching the satistics, and the party I thought was for capitolism, the Reagan I was told to love, was increasingly portrayed to me as lies. All I could tell for myself, was despite their stance on civil liberties, I was no democrat. I struggled with my belief system probably until my freshman year of highschool. Though I didn't know it yet, it was very libertarian esque (I only knew the lesser of two evils). By the end of my junior year (this year, though I am going to college in 12 days thanks to dual enrollment for achievers) I had found ron paul and the libertaran party. I was so amazed when I found out people actually believed in these common sense issues.

Very cool that you are doing dual enrollment. I went through a special WA State program called "Running Start" that is very similar to dual enrollment, and I already have my AA degree and have cut two whole years off of my education.

 

[Liberty Star]

Who is "ourselves"? I wouldn't necessarily declare war if USG property is attacked so long as they are only attacking the government and not its people. Hard to imagine such a war these days, though.

As far as any rigid definition of what's libertarian - I think it'd be a tough sell calling yourself a libertarian while using any energy at all to promote the oppression of foreign peoples while US citizens are oppressed. If foreign nations are oppressing people in the US and people promote fighting back, I don't think that'd be un-libertarian. Supporting pre-emptive war is a deal-breaker for my support and I'd be moderately offended if the person called themself a libertarian, enough that I'd be encouraged to actively work against the person.

That I think is for eveyone to define, I was thinking of our nation , i.e., USA.

I'm no fan of rigid things myself, but a definition of a way of thinking that cannot seperate a pro interventionist neocon from a libertarian who believes in right for all to live freely without attacking others/getting attacked is too fluid. Certain boundaries have to be defined/named for the sake of understanding ourselves and others.