Thomas Massie opposes military strikes in Iraq

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see how genocide is a unique foreign policy scenario. It happens all the time all around the world. If stopping genocide is now the criteria for supporting overseas intervention, we're going to have non stop military interventions all around the world.

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think you are

 

[TaftFan]

Keep calling me a shill, it doesn't make me one.

Foreign policy is a lot more complicated than a lot of people want it to be and I have a hard time discussing it with other libertarians without name calling and irrelevant arguments.

First of all, we are operating under the assumption that we have a military and a foreign policy. So when people complain and whine about taxes being aggression, it completely throws a discussion like this off track.

Second, the military and foreign policy are inherently utilitarian and collectivist. So if you can't get past that, there is no need to ruin the discussion.

In the real world, things need to be thought out. Foreign policy is not simple. It involves many scenarios that are each complicated themselves.

So lets discuss what a libertarian foreign policy would do in the case of genocide.

You could do nothing. That is an option. You could also do something. But we know of issues that arise when we intervene overseas. But issues don't arise just for the sake of us intervening, they have specific causes. That is why a foreign policy needs to follow guiding principles and rules.

Libertarians like to follow the non-aggression principle. It is debatable whether or not it is the ultimate libertarian principle. But for the sake of argument, lets say it is.

Okay, we know responding to attacks is not aggression. Nor is a preemptive response to clear threats. Preventive wars are aggression.

But what about stopping genocides? Surely, helping your neighbor is not aggression.

Genocides can occur in multiple forms, some of which preclude intervention.

For example, you wouldn't try to stop genocide in Russia or China because then you would have nuclear war, and even more lives would be lost. You also wouldn't intervene in a civil war such as Syria, because that would only continue the war, not stop genocide.

But here is a situation where I think intervening to stop genocide is appropriate: If a group of civilians is being systematically slaughtered by a military force and we can determine that intervening would save their lives, not put them in further harm.

That would not be policing the world. We wouldn't be acting as arbiters of justice. We would be performing an act of heroism.

And I am a learning that a ton of self described libertarians are agreeing with me. Even hard core Ron Paul supporters. I am frankly shocked at their response.

 

[Brett85]

And I am a learning that a ton of self described libertarians are agreeing with me. Even hard core Ron Paul supporters. I am frankly shocked at their response.

Me too, but I'm not happy about it.

 

[Brett85]

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think you are

It's weird when it starts getting to the point where I'm one of the more purist libertarian members here. When I first started posting here I was even labeled a "neocon," and most people were generally more radical on foreign policy issues than me. Now it's getting to the point where a lot of people, people who call themselves libertarians, are much less libertarian than me on foreign policy issues. I really haven't changed much; everyone else has.

 

[Brett85]

Theoretically I'm not necessarily a 100% non interventionist regardless of the situation that arises. I can see the rational for stopping someone like Adolf Hitler who was invading country after country and trying to take over the entire world, for example. But I think that when you start getting to the point where you advocate intervening simply for humanitarian reasons, you're basically advocating unlimited military intervention around the world, because there's always going to be some humanitarian crisis occurring somewhere in the world.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Keep calling me a shill, it doesn't make me one.

Fair enough. I'll lay this down and have the discussion.

Foreign policy is a lot more complicated than a lot of people want it to be and I have a hard time discussing it with other libertarians without name calling and irrelevant arguments.

I really don't see what's so complicated about it, nor did the founders.

First of all, we are operating under the assumption that we have a military and a foreign policy. So when people complain and whine about taxes being aggression, it completely throws a discussion like this off track.

I think its something that needs to be addressed, though. And I'll address it here.

The purest libertarian stance is that taxation is indeed theft, which goes along with the non-aggression principle as you mention later. Now, I am not saying ALL libertarians agree with this, but it is the logical conclusion of libertarian thought (whether you agree with it or not.)

Anarcho-capitalists hold this principle as a universal maxim. Strict minarchists make three exceptions (whether that be because they don't believe taxation for these reasons is theft, or whether they do think its theft but also a necessary evil, is irrelevant), for police [only to punish crimes in which there is a victim] military [only for defense], and courts [only to punish crimes in which there is a victim]. Now, I am "OK" with this as far as it goes. I disagree with the exceptions, but that's another issue entirely. Suffice to say that I think the libertarian tent is big enough for ancaps and minarchists.

But when you start putting exceptions on top of the exceptions, you no longer have libertarian philosophy, but something else.

Let me put it this way, you can take the position (as a minarchist) that taxation is not theft if its to provide for a defensive military. But even by the minarchist rules, taxation for the purpose of stopping genocide, or military adventurism of any kind, IS theft. So really, you can't get away from this as part of the discussion. It would be kind of like saying that you want socialized police (which would be a valid minarchist position) but you then also want the government to hire security guards for every home and to help Canada with its policing and pay for that on the tax tab as well. Even if we allow for the sake of discussion that the original socialization of police isn't theft, the extra stuff certainly is.

And, I'm having a problem defending this because its not really consistent. Minarchism is inconsistent, as far as I can tell. I've never heard a minarchist argument for their exceptions that actually works deontologically. Its a weird mix of deontology and utilitarianism. If you make it consistent in the deontology direction, you become an ancap IMO, And if you make it consistent in the utilitarian direction, you could end up with a number of possibilities depending on what you happen to think is most utiltiarian.

Maybe you can help me out here... This is the reason why I ultimately rejected minarchism in the first place, it uses anarcho-capitalism's basic premises but it isn't logically consistent, as far as I can tell.

Second, the military and foreign policy are inherently utilitarian and collectivist. So if you can't get past that, there is no need to ruin the discussion.

Again, this is something that needs to be discussed. Now, we can allow (again, I'm going to try to do this with the minarchist axioms, and I may fail) for a military that is government funded solely for the purpose of defending the country. But once you allow for military actions in which innocent civilians are killed, you are now allowing for murder, which is completely against the NAP regardless of whether you're a minarchist or anarchist. Similarly, if you allow for taxation to fund the defense of OTHER PEOPLE'S countries, you are now forcing Americans to pay for the defense of not only their own country, but other countries as well, which again, would be theft even according to MINARCHIST premises. And I think if you stray too far from this, if at all, you have something that isn't libertarianism.

Now, I can say that as an ancap, minarchist foreign policy is preferable to any other statist foreign policy because it involves stealing the least, giving the people who are actually paying for the service the most bang for their buck, and not killing any (or at the very least far fewer, in the event that the military actually is attacked and needs to fight) civilians. But again, I'm having issues because the minarchist implication of the NAP is not actually consistent either. I'm willing to use them for the sake of argument to see how far the NAP can be stretched without breaking, but again, I think its just an issue of the minarchist being inconsistent, and if you are consistent, you either end up with anarcho-capitalism or with non-libertarianism.

In the real world, things need to be thought out. Foreign policy is not simple. It involves many scenarios that are each complicated themselves.

I don't see what's complicated/wrong with the idea of using the military only to defend the people who actually pay for it, and not using it to intervene overseas.

So lets discuss what a libertarian foreign policy would do in the case of genocide.

You could do nothing. That is an option. You could also do something. But we know of issues that arise when we intervene overseas. But issues don't arise just for the sake of us intervening, they have specific causes. That is why a foreign policy needs to follow guiding principles and rules.

I think any form of intervention is going to result in those issues, which is why I think your stance, even if well-intentioned, ultimately leads to a MASSIVE State far bigger than you would be OK with.

Libertarians like to follow the non-aggression principle. It is debatable whether or not it is the ultimate libertarian principle. But for the sake of argument, lets say it is.

I believe it is, so OK, let's say it is.

Okay, we know responding to attacks is not aggression. Nor is a preemptive response to clear threats. Preventive wars are aggression.

Yes, although we would have to discuss what a "Clear threat' entails. A sensible libertarian might say that if China sends a bunch of people into Canada and are marching toward the US border that that's a "clear threat" but neocons say that Saddam having WMDs or Iran just building a nuke is a "Clear threat" so we'd need to have some kind of definition of what that entails. But on the face of it, I agree with you.

But what about stopping genocides? Surely, helping your neighbor is not aggression.

If you, personally, were to gather a group of people, privately fund the effort, and go over and kill a bunch of soldiers and government leaders who were engaging in genocide, all without killing any civilians, than I'd agree, such an action would not be aggressive. Heck, I don't necessarily consider political assassinations "aggressive", though of course ill advised (in most cases the politician is himself an aggressor to a severe degree.) But, once you throw the government paying for it in the mix, again, considering the MINARCHIST principles that allow for a government-funded military for defensive purposes, this is nonetheless theft. This isn't a distraction from the discussion, its a key element of the discussion. There's also the fact that civilians are virtually always killed in these endeavors, thus they are murderous.

Genocides can occur in multiple forms, some of which preclude intervention.

For example, you wouldn't try to stop genocide in Russia or China because then you would have nuclear war, and even more lives would be lost. You also wouldn't intervene in a civil war such as Syria, because that would only continue the war, not stop genocide.

I presume that by the same logic you use to condemn intervention in Russia and China, you would also say that intervention in Nazi Germany to stop the Holocaust (We can leave the Pearl Harbor issue for another time, and I understand you could argue the conflict as defensive based on that) would have been unjustified because it would be impossible to do so without killing civilians.

But here is a situation where I think intervening to stop genocide is appropriate: If a group of civilians is being systematically slaughtered by a military force and we can determine that intervening would save their lives, not put them in further harm.

When?

That would not be policing the world. We wouldn't be acting as arbiters of justice. We would be performing an act of heroism.

And I am a learning that a ton of self described libertarians are agreeing with me. Even hard core Ron Paul supporters. I am frankly shocked at their response.

Love it or hate it, that is clearly policing at least some part of the world.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's weird when it starts getting to the point where I'm one of the more purist libertarian members here. When I first started posting here I was even labeled a "neocon," and most people were generally more radical on foreign policy issues than me. Now it's getting to the point where a lot of people, people who call themselves libertarians, are much less libertarian than me on foreign policy issues. I really haven't changed much; everyone else has.

From what I understand you're essentially a minarchist on policy. There are some other areas which we've talked about in PMs and such where I wouldn't consider you libertarian, less explicitly political issues that interact with the NAP, such as the morality of being in the military or the police. But there are a lot of minarchists who disagree with me on those for whatever reasons as well. I actually think that issue is more immediately important than the an-cap/minarchist philosophical debate, but that's another issue

You're definitely nowhere near neocon. I wouldn't even call TaftFan a neocon.

Theoretically I'm not necessarily a 100% non interventionist regardless of the situation that arises. I can see the rational for stopping someone like Adolf Hitler who was invading country after country and trying to take over the entire world, for example. But I think that when you start getting to the point where you advocate intervening simply for humanitarian reasons, you're basically advocating unlimited military intervention around the world, because there's always going to be some humanitarian crisis occurring somewhere in the world.

Do you really think Hitler was going to invade the US? I find that really unlikely.

 

[Brett85]

Do you really think Hitler was going to invade the US? I find that really unlikely.

It seems likely that he would've, as his goal seemed to be to take over the world and rid the world of Jews. But my point is basically that it would take a very extraordinary situation for me to support an overseas intervention. I don't consider a humanitarian crisis like what's going on in Iraq to be an extraordinary situation, since that kind of thing happens all the time all around the world. I call myself a non interventionist even though there could be some hypothetical extraordinary situation where I would support an overseas intervention. I guess I'm effectively a 99% non interventionist.

 

[Warlord]

It seems likely that he would've, as his goal seemed to be to take over the world and rid the world of Jews. But my point is basically that it would take a very extraordinary situation for me to support an overseas intervention. I don't consider a humanitarian crisis like what's going on in Iraq to be an extraordinary situation, since that kind of thing happens all the time all around the world. I call myself a non interventionist even though there could be some hypothetical extraordinary situation where I would support an overseas intervention. I guess I'm effectively a 99% non interventionist.

What's the difference between what Hitler was doing and what the Islamic State are doing? one was taking over countries and ethnically cleansing them the other is taking over towns and ethnically cleansing them. I dont see much difference

 

[Christian Liberty]

It seems likely that he would've, as his goal seemed to be to take over the world and rid the world of Jews. But my point is basically that it would take a very extraordinary situation for me to support an overseas intervention. I don't consider a humanitarian crisis like what's going on in Iraq to be an extraordinary situation, since that kind of thing happens all the time all around the world. I call myself a non interventionist even though there could be some hypothetical extraordinary situation where I would support an overseas intervention. I guess I'm effectively a 99% non interventionist.

If Hitler's goal was to kill all of the Jews, why would he have sent some of them to the US? It seems more likely to me that he was trying to purge Europe of Jews. I could be wrong, but that would be more consistent with his actions, and obviously still horiffic.

What's the difference between what Hitler was doing and what the Islamic State are doing? one was taking over countries and ethnically cleansing them the other is taking over towns and ethnically cleansing them. I dont see much difference

I still don't support intervention, but that's a huge difference in scale, isn't it?

 

[Vanguard101]

One could argue we should stop it unless we are willing to dehumanize ourselves. That's outside political philosophy though

Theoretically I'm not necessarily a 100% non interventionist regardless of the situation that arises. I can see the rational for stopping someone like Adolf Hitler who was invading country after country and trying to take over the entire world, for example. But I think that when you start getting to the point where you advocate intervening simply for humanitarian reasons, you're basically advocating unlimited military intervention around the world, because there's always going to be some humanitarian crisis occurring somewhere in the world.

Lol turn your argument around and apply that to the "rational" of stopping Hitler.

 

[presence]

Keep calling me a shill, it doesn't make me one.

[]

Even hard core Ron Paul supporters. I am frankly shocked at their response.

Unless genocide is occuring in the continental US, our territorial waters, or within the confines of one of our embassies... its


NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS (PERIOD)

 

[Brett85]

What's the difference between what Hitler was doing and what the Islamic State are doing? one was taking over countries and ethnically cleansing them the other is taking over towns and ethnically cleansing them. I dont see much difference

I can't really help you out if you don't see a difference between the Holocaust and a civil war in Iraq.

 

[Brett85]

Lol turn your argument around and apply that to the "rational" of stopping Hitler.

I don't see your point.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I can't really help you out if you don't see a difference between the Holocaust and a civil war in Iraq.

I'm assuming his point is that the principle is the same. And going under the assumption that he's pro-liberty, I assume his point is that the same principles that are being used to reject intervention in Iraq could logically be applied to Hitler, and the same principles that interventionists use to justify attacking Hitler could be used to accept intervention in Iraq.

And here's the thing, most people who I've seen defend WWII mentiion the Holocaust in some sense, and try to make you out as a heartless monster if you don't want to go to war to stop the genocide, even though the obvious small government and pro-liberty position is not to do so. And then, once you get suckered into that, you get suckered into supporting war to stop genocide in general, which leads to a warmongering interventionist foreign policy in general. It is a logical progression.

Now, I assume that you would have rejected US involvement to stop the Holocaust just like any other genocide, and that your reason for getting involved would be your fear that the war would eventually reach US soil. That's a different reason that requires a different set of arguments. And, those arguments wouldn't apply to Iraq at all, as only a total moron would think that ISIS is actually going to invade US Soil.

 

[Brett85]

Duplicate post.

 

[Brett85]

I'm assuming his point is that the principle is the same. And going under the assumption that he's pro-liberty, I assume his point is that the same principles that are being used to reject intervention in Iraq could logically be applied to Hitler, and the same principles that interventionists use to justify attacking Hitler could be used to accept intervention in Iraq.

And here's the thing, most people who I've seen defend WWII mentiion the Holocaust in some sense, and try to make you out as a heartless monster if you don't want to go to war to stop the genocide, even though the obvious small government and pro-liberty position is not to do so. And then, once you get suckered into that, you get suckered into supporting war to stop genocide in general, which leads to a warmongering interventionist foreign policy in general. It is a logical progression.

Now, I assume that you would have rejected US involvement to stop the Holocaust just like any other genocide, and that your reason for getting involved would be your fear that the war would eventually reach US soil. That's a different reason that requires a different set of arguments. And, those arguments wouldn't apply to Iraq at all, as only a total moron would think that ISIS is actually going to invade US Soil.

Yes, my view is that it directly threatens U.S national security when one country starts invading country after country and tries to take over the entire world. I think it would've eventually reached U.S soil. The genocide that went along with that would only be a secondary reason for intervening. That alone wouldn't be enough. But, I was just presenting a scenario to explain that I can't really say that I would oppose intervention in every single hypothetical scenario. But every intervention since WWII I would oppose, (except for Afghanistan) so I'm not exactly an interventionist by any means. I'm more non interventionist than Rand on foreign policy issues but not quite as pure as Ron.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, I disagree with you but I don't necessarily think its a big deal. I don't really agree with you on Hitler's intentions (again, I think his goal was to make EUROPE Aryan, not necessarily the entire world, and even if he did want to make the entire world, I think that's an impossible goal that he never would have accomplished.) I am curious what measures you believe were justified to wage such a war, which is more of a moral issue than a political one (then again, pretty much everything is for me these days, the more I think about it the more I am convinced of anarcho-capitalism and of how evil everything else is). But I definitely don't think it makes you an interventionist. A big problem is when neocons (not you, obviously) make it out like every petty tyrant and wanna-be racial/religious supremacist is a new Hitler.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was compared to Hitler to try to justify the Iraq War. There was really no comparison. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but didn't try to take over the world and rid the world of an entire race of people. He cracked down on dissent and killed some of his own people, but he was about 1% as evil as Hitler.

 

[Christian Liberty]

BTW: I've read end the fed and it seemed clear to me that Ron was opposed to WWII. Its worth noting that Pat Buchanan is on the record for opposing it as well. THat said, I think Pat has been on record for supporting some smaller interventions, while Ron has not.

The WWII thing kind of bugs me, its so irrelevant politically but so relevant morally. There's no way to fight a war of that magnitude without murdering tons of innocent people (The tax issue, while still relevant, is secondary). I wouldn't necessarily have a massive problem with sending a special forces team in to assassinate Hitler (I say "necessarily" in the sense that as an ancap I still don't think such a thing should be government funded, and certainly what Germany would be likely to do in response to such a thing would have to be considered, but if we're assuming minarchism its a government action that I could tolerate) but it seems preposterous to me to say that we could actually have waged war against the entire country. At least not the type of war that we actually did fight, which involved directly targeting and murdering civilians. Honestly, this is more the type of issue that I feel should be addressed in churches than in congress. "We shouldn't get involved anywhere unless there's an immediate attack on our soil, or someone is actually trying to take over the world" would be good enough for me to vote for the person in question, but I have a hard time acknowledging anybody who is Ok with "collateral damage" for any reason as my brother or sister in Christ. I know I'm putting a religious spin on it here but I think its relevant. Maybe I should reopen my old thread on that issue.