There are many changes occurring here at the LDC, the most exciting of which is the move of the Caucus toward affiliation with the movement. For those of you who don’t know, Neolibertarianism is basically a denial of the Libertarian Party’s non-interventionist politics. In essence, it is a sort of merger between Neoconservatism and Libertarianism. The way I like to think of it is this: Neolibertarianism is Libertarianism for a Global Economy.
Indeed, one of the most troubling aspects of the Libertarian movement is its refusal to see the modern world and the modern economy for what it is. We cannot, as many Libertarians would have us, withdraw our military from its world-wide bases. We cannot leave our defenses down in the face of a rising Chinese threat, an ever more hostile Russia, and the fact that radical Islamists are going to great lengths to ensure our destruction and the destruction of our allies.
Neolibertarians embrace these facts without sacrificing their principles of individual liberty, freedom, and a belief that most legislation and taxation should occur at a local level rather than at the Federal level. They manage to remain pro-market while also remaining pro-defense. In many ways, the Neolibertarian movement is closely aligned to the Secular wing of the Republican Party. They have been called Republitarians in the past.
In a global economy, we must remain strong internationally. This includes our military might as well as our economic presence. World peace may be a pipe dream–but world security can exist if free and democratic nations chose to enforce it. America, the UK, Israel and other allies must maintain strong defenses to provide security for the world, commerce, and the stability of international relations. This is the spirit of Neoconservatism. Add to this foreign policy a domestic policy advocating freedom above all things, and you get Neolibertarianism.
I hope that the ideals of Neolibertarianism will be reinforced by the activism and publications of the LDC now and into the future.
7 comments:
Sign Me up! A true philosophy of liberty, strong defense against global threats and limited government and individual liberty at home.
The big dollar question to neolibertarians are how can you reconcile small/limited government with an interventionist, expansionist foreign policy? P'm pro-defense, but anti-pre-emptive war offense, that makes the world less safe.
Also: how consistent is it to claim to enforce democracy in two Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), nation-building, while working with non-democratic governments and trading with them, liek Saudia-Arabia (the country most of the 9/11 attackers came from and also sending Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq)?
If you can rationally and satisfactory explain these two inconsistencies, one could join you, otherwise you should join us (the non-interventionist libertarians).
Stefan, you are misrepresenting the Neolibertarian philosophy. Neolibertarianism at its philosophical 'core' is neither interventionist nor expansionist in its foreign policy:
From Mr. Dale Franks:
he two principles of foreign policy are as follows:
"1. A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
2. A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected."
Please re-read point number two carefully befor moving on.
He continues..
"It's easiest to describe neolibertarianism in opposition to the other strains of libertarian thought. In contrast to many libertarians, I support a pragmatic solution to achieve idealistic goals. This doesn't mean selling out or endorsing immoral, anti-libertarian actions, merely that certain actions have to be taken to better market and explain our message at election time, and that it would improve the popular support for freedom-based policies if we introduced them on an incremental timeframe rather than all at once. I support generally the same end goals, but I think we can get there faster, or at all, only if we accept that pragmatism has a role in the process.
I also believe that we must commit ourselves to defending the rights of others around the world, unlike many libertarians that only support defending the rights of people in their own country. This extends to use of force in situations where it's the best solution, including situations where dictators refuse to open up their countries or where mass murder, genocide or crimes against humanity are taking place. I also support defending the rights of persons not able to speak for themselves, including the unborn and the physically disabled. Natural rights extend to all persons, regardless of geography, age or ability, and it's incredibly statist and conservative to only care about the rights of some people because we drew arbitrary distinctions like trimesters or countries.
Philosophically, it means a moral belief that every individual ought to live by the same basic rules but otherwise be free to do as he wishes; it means that the initiation of force or fraud is morally illegitimate whether it comes from a government, a business, a bowling club or you alone. This is the essence of libertarianism in general, to remove the extra-human privileges that some people have bestowed on themselves simply because they have a flag and call themselves 'The Government.' States should be bound by the same basic moral rules as individuals.
Neolibertarianism, however, means making a political commitment to combat the initation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.
Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neolibertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.
Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with near-infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an agressor, even if you aren't the victim.
Some people have equated neolibertarianism with conservatism, pragmatism and Hobbesianism. I could scarcely disagree more; neolibertarianism is liberalist, idealist and Lockean.
By liberalist, I mean ascribing to an ideology based on human liberty, human goodness, and market commerce. I believe that people are basically good, I believe that freedom is inseparable from a just and lasting peace and I think markets are a wonderful route to prosperity and understanding.
By idealist, I mean that a neo-libertarian view embraces an objective, universal, Stoic perspective of life and existence, and that ethical behavior is inherently valuable.
By Lockean, I mean I do not accept the Hobbesian view that the world is a cold, hellish, anarchical place that only a master despot can tame. I subscribe to the view, espoused by Locke, that people are basically good and that freedom and representative institutions are the best normal route for governing human interactions. However, also like Locke, I think that some people are cruel, evil and intolerably unjust, and that they can and ought to be captured, arrested or killed for their crimes. Idealism by no means equates to pacifism.
I have a great deal of practical and policy-based arguments for why my favored solutions to various problems will work. The measure of an ideology, however, is its philosophy. An ideology without solid philosophical underpinnings is unpredictable and might vacillate between pacifism and fascism, socialism and conservatism. I hope that I've explained somewhat my political philosophy and the political philosophy I see propelling neo-libertarian thought in general.
Neolibertarianism is simply a logical extension of the same moral principles that undergird classical liberalism and general libertarianism to cover three topics often overlooked or disregarded by paleo-libertarians - the freedoms of the voiceless, the freedoms of foreigners and the common sense to recognize that pragmatic action is not inherently unprincipled, whether in elections or warfare."
Agin Neolibertarian foreign policy is guided by many principles, but these are the two ver-riding and guiding principles:
1. A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
2. A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected."
Stefan,one may certainly have very limited constitutional government and a military capable of repelling attack and eliminating foreseeable and gathering threats to national security. I am certain you are familiar with of Posse comitatus:
Posse comitatus (common law):
"In the United States, a Federal statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military of the United States as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes."
This principle of law would ensure limited constitutional government domestically AND a strong and dynamic Armed forces. It has worked throughout the course of our nation's history, yet somehow you believe it would suddenly become compromised?
One last point, if you were shopping in a mall and suddenly a man began shooting into a crowd of people right next to you, do you wait until he points the gun DIRECTLY AT YOU before you shoot your gun at him, or do you shoot preemptively at the gunman and eliminate the threat he is posing to you?
Preemption is a matter of degrees.
I disagree with your characterization of "enforcing democracy". Democray is not an imposition upon individuals suffering under tyranny. Would you logically say we "enforced" democracy when we liberated Europe from the Nazi regime?
As far as working with non-democratic nations, foreign policy is a complicated three-dimensional chess match. A nation will not always be able to work alongside democratic actors with moral governments to achieve its own ends. That does not mean we should not advance liberty whenever it is in our direct interest as a nation to do so. Oftentimes, it is a case by case situation. There is no "cookie-cutter" solution for International Affairs.
"paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world."
Well put! Exactly the case...
"foreign policy is a complicated three-dimensional chess match. A nation will not always be able to work alongside democratic actors with moral governments to achieve its own ends."
Also well put. It is difficult to always be allied with the right groups, as some of our allies are obviously not very nice people--Saudi Arabia for one. However, the Saudi government poses no imminent threat, even if many of their charities fund terror and so forth. Of course, we should certainly work to free ourselves from ties to such nations. This does not negate the need to remain vigilant in the face of nations such as Iran, who do pose very real threats to security....
Ryan:
Some felection for you: democracy in a country has only successfully been brought about by forces from inside the country itself, whether with non-violent protests, gradual persuasion or even through civil war, but NEVER through an outside country invading the country by force and killing people.
McCain has just admitted that the Iraq invasion was for oil, not for WMD and not for democracy. I have always throught democracy is a peaceful process, and accept difference of opinion and that there exist something like a "tyranny of democracy" and that it took the Western world ha process of hundreds of years to evolve and develop. To now invade other countries, overthrow the leaders of the country, is not only hypocracy, but also essentially fully undemocratic and with regard to the Middle East also essentially against the wishes of the majority of the people. You have to factor in cultural factors also, not every democracy can and should look like the US democracy and they get a bad example of current US democracy. Many countries are nation-states, there are not multicultural countries and people should be let alone to work out their own system. No system will ever be perfect. No what if you invade a country like Iraq and the mdemocratic majority of the people are against you invading them? And what about when you promote democracy and when a democratic election is held, you do not accept the outcome of the election?in that country.Are you consequent neolibertarian then?
If you want to promote democracy in a country, you should do it through NGO organisations and for what is in the best interests of the people of that country, and NOT for what is only the best of the US. This means in practise "neolibertarianism" is nothing else than "neocolonialism"! Therefor it is morally reprehensible and fundamentally flawed and arrogant and selfish and should be comdemned in the harshest terms.
FYI: The way Mr. Franks decribes how neoliberalism can look like in practise essentially means an interventionist foreign policy, regardless of his trying to deny that. In the wikipedia definition you will see it is defined as an interventionist foreign policy.
Lastly, I would also like to point out that the democratic way is not necessarily all that better and ideal for all countries. In Hong Kong for instance there was never any democracy, but there was and is an open and free economic market, more free than in the US and most of the people are happy.
Ryan, with regard to your analogy:
"One last point, if you were shopping in a mall and suddenly a man began shooting into a crowd of people right next to you, do you wait until he points the gun DIRECTLY AT YOU before you shoot your gun at him, or do you shoot preemptively at the gunman and eliminate the threat he is posing to you?"
Yes, I agree you should shoot the gunman in the case it seems very sure it is only a matter of time before he will shoot you.
Now in relation to Iraq, there was NO evidence that Iraq had an threat or plans to attack the US, it was all sexed up, as you know. In case they acquired nuclear weapons - which would only be possible in a few years, you can also not attack them then it it amounts to them wanting it for self-defense. This amounts to being a man with a gun and shooting another man with a gun, simply because he has a gun. He has not said is going to shoot you, and even in that case, you must consider how he means it, is it an empthy threat or is he really serious that he is going to shoot you. Only in the second case you you justified to shoot him first, if he is in the process of pulling out his gun. The US has very advanced technoligical and military instruments to act very fast and also to shoot a missile down, should a missile be fired on the US.
Note: I will always be there to combat logical fallacies and error in judgement and to point out inconsistencies.
I found out about this site from a comment left at the blog, But, I am a Liberal! Very interesting material.
Stefan:
You write like a committed Libertarian, which I’m sure makes you self-confident in your particular political ideology. However, like many ideologues, you lack some basic understanding of history.
For example, when you write no country has ever had democracy forced on it, tell that to the (West) Germans and Japanese. Are you aware who wrote the Japanese Constitution?
Also, you are incorrect in noting that HK lacked democracy. It did for at least the last 10 years of British rule. See, for example:
The Last Legislative Election of Hong Kong under British Rule, 1995
Author: Wing K.F.
Source: Electoral Studies, Volume 15, Number 1, February 1996 , pp. 119-123(5)
Another source:
New York Times (Sep 18, 1991): Post-Vote Criticism for Hong Kong Governor
This too:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/1082831497110.html
When you write:
“Now in relation to Iraq, there was NO evidence that Iraq had an threat or plans to attack the US...”
Wrong. Iraq was attacking U.S. airplanes on a regular basis, in clear violation of the UN Resolutions that established the no-fly zones. That attacks alone provided a justification for the U.S.—and our supposed allies—to attack.
We essentially had three options:
1) Continue with the “containment strategy” and sanctions regime which was not containing much of anything. Oil-for-food, U.S. and U.K. planes getting shot at on the regular, etc. etc. etc. And if you believe the radical-left, the sanctions were killing 100,000 Iraqis per month.
2) Give up on the containment strategy and sanctions completely. This was the goal of the radical-left.
3) Remove Hussein from power and destroy the Baathist regime.
If you can think of any other options, I am all ears. Seriously...
Lastly, this comment says a lot:
“I will always be there to combat logical fallacies and error in judgement and to point out inconsistencies.”
Ideologically committed libertarians are good for that sort of theoretical critique, but not much else. When it comes to action i.e. actually ***fostering liberty*** around the globe, the LP has come up way short. In fact, both mainstream parties have done much better in this regard.
PS: I'm a big fan of Thucydides.
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/thoughts-on-thucydides%E2%80%99-peloponnesian-war/
Post a Comment