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

[robert68]

Of course you can support the wars and be libertarian. The reason for support of the wars is key. If you honestly believe that Iraq and Afghanistan were a serious threat to the security of our nation, and that they were about to kill us all, then I think your ideas are perfectly compatible with libertarianism. That doesn't mean that you are not an idiot though.

ISTM, that suggests one can be a libertarian and support the destruction of life and property on a grand scale, of innocents, as long as that person has the right delusion. IMO, to be a "libertarian", one must also be sane and informed; motive isn’t enough.

 

[johnrocks]

I guess one can be although liberal interventionism is a "deal breaker" for me, no candidate that supports it will get my vote anymore than one that supports gun control or TARP would.

 

[Liberty Star]

I guess one can be although liberal interventionism is a "deal breaker" for me, no candidate that supports it will get my vote anymore than one that supports gun control or TARP would.

Then McCain, Bill Maher, Lindsey Graham, Lieberman are all pretty libertarian.

 

[Liberty Star]

Ron Paul does not support a pre-emptive attack on Iran. The heart of the Ron Paul movement was antiwar and anti-interventionism and definitely anti-pre-emptive attack, and that's the main reason he became so popular.

I think the type of libertarianism you are talking about is the John McCain variety.

Actually RP opposed pre-emptive war against Iraq too.

 

[Knightskye]

YouTube - Ron Paul: Christian Just War Theory

YouTube - Ron Paul House Floor Speech on Iraq (October 8, 2002)

Also, 4:33 in this video:


YouTube - Ron Paul : Don't tread on me

One of the best Ron Paul quotes, in my opinion.

 

[andrewh817]

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

In all fairness, you never specified that.

No libertarian is for not defending ourselves when attacked.

Who is "ourselves"? If by that you mean people in a certain geographic area that are forced to pay taxes to a government that made up those borders, then it's never self-defense. The government is made up of people. Countries are made up of people and land. The only place I own (besides the whole property taxes thing) is my own house. If my house is broken into and I know who is responsible and I decide to respond with violence, that may not be the best way, but I will weigh the pros and cons, and that's morally permissible.

And what about who did the attacking? In the instance of suicide bombers, there can NEVER be self-defense. Those responsible already died, there can be no restitution, and killing other people who may or may not have been in the same association as them is NOT justified.

The fact is, people in the government and military are only held accountable when people are willing to risk their own safety to leak war documents. That means even if you THINK a country was invaded in self defense, if you support that war, then you support every thing that comes out of that war, the shooting of innocent families, the bombing of basic sewage and water supplies, and the creation of a new underclass who has seen nothing but destruction and violence. The war is out of your control, COMPLETELY! So don't pretend that you can support the idea of the war without supporting the results of the war.

 

[Liberty Star]

In all fairness, you never specified that.



Who is "ourselves"? If by that you mean people in a certain geographic area that are forced to pay taxes to a government that made up those borders, then it's never self-defense. The government is made up of people. Countries are made up of people and land. The only place I own (besides the whole property taxes thing) is my own house. If my house is broken into and I know who is responsible and I decide to respond with violence, that may not be the best way, but I will weigh the pros and cons, and that's morally permissible.

And what about who did the attacking? In the instance of suicide bombers, there can NEVER be self-defense. Those responsible already died, there can be no restitution, and killing other people who may or may not have been in the same association as them is NOT justified.

The fact is, people in the government and military are only held accountable when people are willing to risk their own safety to leak war documents. That means even if you THINK a country was invaded in self defense, if you support that war, then you support every thing that comes out of that war, the shooting of innocent families, the bombing of basic sewage and water supplies, and the creation of a new underclass who has seen nothing but destruction and violence. The war is out of your control, COMPLETELY! So don't pretend that you can support the idea of the war without supporting the results of the war.

ourselves is us, as in our collectivist nationhood.

attacking if done by a foreign state, but smart defense would apply in case of all attacks.


i don't disagree with the spirit of your post, i don't support revenge attacks on innocent people of same race of whom few suicidal nuts may have attacked us.