Stossel: What Is Libertarian Foreign Policy?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 кві 2010
- A panel of libertarians, including Cato's Jeffrey Miron and David Boaz, discuss libertarian views of foreign policy.
What is the proper role of the military? Why does the United States have so many military bases all over the world? Are preemptive strikes on other nations ever justified? The panel discusses all of these questions and more.
Good conversation, wish politics was like this now. Just a simple straightforward opinion.
Person: *Breathes*
Crowd: WOOOO YEAH
Regardless of the issue and content, what amazed me most in this clip was a panel of people with VERY different viewpoints actually having a civil discussion. Each speaker was allowed to speak without being interrupted or shouted down by dissenting voices. This is so different as to stand out. BRAVO, Stossel, et al.
They need Ron Paul up there, he usually sums it up.
i took a crap! "people clapping"
💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼💩👏🏼
Ending war will end the ptsd related problems. I never understood how such a “peaceful” as we claim to be are so much for this eternal war machine, such a waste of money and lives
Wait we actually have troops in Greenland? Wtf 😂
theres an airforce base there, because russia lmao.
US protects 67 countries in the world. It saves them money from having to build and maintain their own armies. This helps them have more money for their citizens so they can have such things as public healthcare and education.
@@romaskincare9138 Wow why can't we have that here
@@jared1964 Because it'd cost the elites (big pharma and other big corps) too much money in the US to actually give Americans anything. America is where they make most of their profits.
If Americans knew better, they would refuse to pay federal taxes (or just a small amount for the necessities) And instead transfer everything to their states. Because under the Constitution it's the states that have the authority and power to create health and education plans.
Also, since states can not build an army or declare war, there's no fear of the state cutting the healthcare and education budget in order to pay for military and war. Only the federal government can do that, which is why they do it all the time.
Americans need to defund the feds, and invest in their individual states.
@@jared1964
I know. We could even abolish our own military, but still have a defense by allowing millions of citezens to own machine guns, canons, helicopters, planes, cars and nuclear reactors ( they have the same ingredients as a nuclear bomb, rn there are 54 nuclear power plants in the US ).
I think Deroy just isn't familiar with "blowback" and our country's long history of meddling in other countries' business.
He probably is now!
Mean Bean Productions Yea he must’ve changed his mind
invading Iraq was not the problem. The problem was meddling in their politics and elections and over staying our welcome.
Wait, we have troops in other countries for their defense? Seriously, what the hell?!?
We don't allow troops from other countries, so we shouldn't think we should be stationed in other countries.
We do allow foreign troops European countries come to desert to train
Bruce Nadeau he means occupation. No foreign military has a base on US soil.
libertarian policy in general is "leave people the fuck alone"
goPistons06 Absolutely right. But nowadays there are very few libertarians who advocate a strictly isolationist foreign policy.
Get it together Deroy!
I think Deroy is a neocon in disguise.
He is a contributing editor of the National Review, think of that. So I'd rather blame the show for describing him as libertarian
That nuclear reactor metaphor was unjustified.
Please explain
@@copperpumpkin2648 posted that 11 yrs ago I have no idea man 🤣
@@1thruZ lmaoooo
@@1thruZ Maybe cuz it’s perpetuating the ignorant and irrational fear of nuclear power when it’s literally the safest and most efficient form of energy that humanity is capable of harnessing at the moment?
I think joining a war against a foreign threat isn't unlibertarian per se. If you're walking down the street and someone punches your friend, you are not initiating force by punching the attacker, even if he never laid a finger on you. You should be able to defend those who are the victim of unwanted force, further it might be in your interest to take out someone who could pose harm to you too. I think that applied to foreign policy would legitimize our acting in WWII before pearl harbor.
Well I do , because libertarianism is about the gov protecting us not some random idiotic country per se but your viewpoint is interesting.
That guy at the end had it so right!
great video, I love John Stossel
My philosophy on foreign policy: we should be saying a lot more of "that's not my problem"
David Boaz is the only panelist with common sense.
You mean people can disagree and continue to hear eachother out? Mind Blown
I wonder if Deroy looks back on the years and sees his words aging like bread? 😂
How do you prevent it?
Why would Iran attack France first. John Stossel should have brought up Israel.
These videos are becoming historical artifacts.
I definitely do think we should not be in many of these nations that really don't need our help and should be raising armies of their own rather than being reliant on American military strength. However, regarding those people's in need, I do thing we as Americans have a obligation to protect and defend those who can't defend themselves. Looking at South Korea, I think they should have their own military and not rely on America. But if they were ever attacked by North Korea, then we should be ready to help them if necessary to defend themselves. My view on foreign policy is this: First, it must always be a declared war by congress. And it must only be if: 1) Someone poses a real threat to America; either direct attack (like 9/11) or simply a serious enough threat (like Iran with nukes); 2) If a country invades another country then we should be willing to come to the defense of the invaded if they ask for our help. A more modern example of this was the first Gulf War. We came to the defense of Kuwait and defeated the invading Iraqis; 3) If a country is severely oppressing their own people. To me, this is reasonable grounds to go against North Korea now. My reasoning for these three cases of when we should use military force are as a defense for both us and weaker nations and as a deterrent to aggressors. Basically don't attack us, don't invade others, and don't oppress your own people. If you do then you will feel the full force of the American military. We stand up for ourselves, our allies, and for those oppressed. Of course we should do this far more efficiently and effectively, but military is a legitimate role of government. It's not so much that we should be the world's police, but that as a prosperous and powerful nation we should be willing to stand up for others. This is not all that difficult. If we did this right, our mere presence in the world would be enough to calm many potential conflicts. We would tell the world to "play nice or beware." If an aggressor is rational then they will heed our warning and think twice about provoking the United States. If they are not then they will be made an example of to the rest of the world.
I like that idea.
I have some disagreements, but overall, I agree completely that the United States shouldn’t be involved in wars fought thousands of miles away from our shores
@doobersmanster
What I'm saying is, any document that makes legislation, be it treaties, trade agreements, or even laws; if they don't follow our Constitution, they are invalid. In order for them to be constitutional, there must be an amendment made to the Constitution that supports the other document. I'm not sure how you think the Constitution works against the people, but the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and puts in writing the liberties the government isn't allowed to dismiss.
Deroy, my boy, you're a conservative, not a libertarian, bless you!💜
@ltlblugrl That might not be a Libertarian position, but it is a libertarian position.
'There is no avoiding of war, you can only post pone it to the advantage of your enemy.'
'Si vis pacem, para bellum.'
'For evil to triumph,all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing.'
Having troops close to potential conflict is the best prevention of war, which would otherwise occur and suck you in anyway at much higher price.
Also rules have changed - WMDs instead of muskets, suicide bombers(Iran's invention) instead of uniformed gentlemen, genocide instead of POW.
Peace
@return135 : You mean, anarcho capitalist? This is philosophically different from a libertarian. If you want to be a politician in America, your choice should preferably be Libertarian.
sticksquash Founding fathers were all libertarians.
Everyone blames leaders, who do share a large part of the blame, but they have to have followers to make anything happen. There are many more followers to blame than leaders. One has to take out a leader and all of his followers to make change. Not a kind, clean or easy process.
I tend to be very much libertarian in my political and economic views.
Regarding foreign policy, though, I do differ a bit.
I agree with national defense, when we are directly attacked. Most libertarians agree with that one.
However, we now live in an age with such weapons as ICBM's. With that, we can't really wait to be attacked. So, I would move the measure of legitimate military response to, not just direct attack but, serious threat of attack. Now, there would have to be very strict guidelines on what constitutes a valid threat warranting military response.
Another issue I have is that of defending others. I'd disagree with being the world's policeman. I don't think that's legitimate. However, we are the world's sole superpower.
Start at an individual level, as that one lady mentioned. If someone attacks you, you should defend yourself. Now, if someone attacks someone else with you, should you just stand by and let them be assaulted?
If you are weak and have no means of coming to their aid, then the point is mute. But, when you are fully capable of defending others who can't stand up for themselves, I think you have some responsibility to do so.
I would apply that to foreign affairs. If a country is seeking to conquer other, weaker nations than there's a point at which we say enough and come to their defense. There is a stage where it's a regional conflict and we shouldn't get involved. But, I'd argue there is indeed some balance here.
Example: Many agree the 2003 Iraq Invasion was not warranted. OK. What about the 1990 Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Should we have stood by and let that happen?
For me, that brings another issue. On one hand, I can agree with it on the basis of coming to the aid of Kuwait.
On the other hand, I note that this was a coalition victory (led by the U.S.). While the U.S. certainly played the largest role (as usual), a lack of U.S. support could bring the question back to other countries providing more of their own defense. Perhaps, in future events like that, rather than relying so heavily on U.S. backing, a coalition of other nations can better handle such events, while the U.S. stays out.
So, for me, this goes back and forth. The question is how much the U.S. should be involved in foreign affairs. I definitely don't agree with the maintenance of all these bases around the world, in countries we aren't currently at war with. I definitely prefer only "declared war" and an end to these "police actions." We shouldn't even be in organizations like the UN and NATO.
National defense is a given. However, the level to which we can legitimately intervene in foreign affairs, when another country is facing tyranny, is up for debate in my mind.
I'm a Libertarian, with a foreign policy exception - annihilation. If we are facing such a threat that decides it is going to start rolling across Europe and or the entire Eastern hemisphere, and that happens, their sites are on the U.S. interests as well. We open ourselves up to annihilation by doing nothing. It is self preservation by coming to the protection of others who share the same truths of freedom (in whatever imperfect form) v. oppression and maybe even genocide. If they decide to use nukes across a continent, guess where that fallout is coming? Our Libertarian U.S. soil/atmosphere. I've got to try to stop the use of nukes as it will doubly save an ally and our way of life. But oil fields somewhere? Nah - we can't be so dependent anymore.
@@casebz Ok, even if some nation managed to conquer the entire old world and only left the Americas, this still wouldn't necessarily guarantee we'd be annihilated. Aside from the fact that this has never come close, the shear logistics of amassing such a force to come across the Pacific or Atlantic make it virtually impossible.
As far as nuclear weapons, there's a chance some conflict on the other side of the world could go nuclear. That would certainly have some affect on Americans in the U.S. However, I'd be far more concerned with polluting our own environment. We've managed to go 75 years without another nuclear attack.
@@johnc1014 thanks for the reply. I'm not too worried about it - after all I think a Libertarian society would make it so people would rather make peace with us - it would be the best biz partner they ever had! Aside from that perfect future picture I'm fully aware of the awesome and overwhelming next gen tech that would wipe their forces out before they come within 100 miles of our shore. The scenario is close to fiction but never 100pct impossible. Cheers!
@@casebz So it depends on a war's size and scope for an unrelated third party to intervene?
@John C
Really interesting take. I agree with most of it except I find potential value in being the world police. I am in favor a greater American role across the world. If countries don't build up their own military because America is providing their defense then that eliminates that country as a potential enemy in the future. When America has such interwoven involvement aborad it further solidifies our power, influence and control which ultimately positively benefits American citizens.
As an example, if China were to invade Taiwan, you could make the case, "Not my country, not my problem." However Taiwan produces 90% of the world's semiconductors. Should we allow our economy to be crippled at the whims of China. They could completely restrict the sale of semiconductors to the US and destroy our economy. Everything from cars, phone, computers, satellites and everything else our modern economy uses to function would be severely affected.
@Th3Wab3
Well in a sense you are right. IQ is a predictor but we all have a free will. Wendy's founder Dave Thomas was a high school drop out.
Seriously for voting I would have no problem with a simple 10 question test. Who is the president? Who is the VP? Who is your governor? Who is your congressperson? How many branches of government? How many states? and so forth. You would need 7 out of 10 to pass.
If a citizen cannot pass then they do not deserve to vote.
American (and many nations) needs to leave the United Nations and NATO
But if Iran aquired a million nukes, THEN said "we're going to attack you", it would be too late. How many moves ahead do you want to think. That is the question.
100 soldiers in Greenland make what? 1% of their population?
wendy is awesome imo
@gothnate I agree with you that that is the way it is, but what do you say about Reservations as treaty law..and also Nafta...It should be that way but it is not practiced that way..It should not be the law of the land, but unfortunatly it is not practiced that way..States rights died with the application of the Fourteenth ammendment was applied to the states...This is the way the Collectivists have systematically dismanteled the Constitution.
The audience is a bit odd. However, I am pleasantly surprised that both sides of the story were applauded equally. Shockingly, this panel on FOX news feels more open minded than any other political conversation I have ever heard.
To anyone watching in 2010, BUY AMAZON AT $140
Are government should have a foreign and domestic policy of mind your own business
"Libertarians believe in limited government, that doesn't mean no government. We want..."
I wish it was that simple, as I'm a minarchist libertarian myself, but there are anarcho-libertarians and (sadly) socialist libertarians, etc.
guys. nukes.
Genius
That list of 10 countries, probably none of them need US troops at this point. Withdraw from those bases and allow the native country to build its own buildings once all US important things are removed from those numerous bases.
Deroy is not a libertarian, he doesn't even understand the fundamental beliefs of libertarianism or he couldn't say what he's said.
Because of oppinions like that,Israel must be strong all the time..god forbid if we'll ever need actual U.S help(boots on the ground)we're greatfull for U.S support but we carry on with the moto "Give us the tools,we shall do the work"
Yay! I love Israel! A fellow democracy AND they defend themselves!
I have an extensive libertarian streak and dislike foreign intervention but in my neighborhood if someone punched your friend you helped your friend. If South Korea were attacked and our troops weren't there, there is no reason we couldn't use the Navy and Airforce to help repel NK. The same goes if someone attacked France.
Deroy Murdocks pre emptive war views FTL
Deroy is not a Libertarian.
I'm a libertarian and an Objectivist, and there are common libertarian arguments that I fine purile. One is that property rights are justifiable via the homesteading tradition. That's not an argument, that's a fallacy in reasoning. The other is the sociopathic view of if it doesn't affect me directly then go ahead and rape, murder and pillage our neighbors. 'Sucks to be them. That's no different than Charles Manson watching a piano fall on a person and shrugging his shoulders.
Deroy is on the libertarian spectrum, but not as consistent as say, Harry Browne.
france's problem ftw.
also how is Deroy libertarian?
The three most libertarian presidents (in foreign policy outcomes) in modern times have been Ronaldus Maximus, Donaldinov Trumpkin, and Willie-putty.
USA supported Saddam through his worst atrocities. Iraq would have overthrown him on its own.
@fractalbuddha I think it's almost hilarious to always classify things as "corporate interests" even when Libertarians are talking. They don't look at corporate interests, they look at the peoples interest. Everyone and every company is going bankrupt because we are involved in international BS. Internationalism is a huge problem for us.
@Truthpolice9698
I hope you were being sarcastic
What you just wrote is insulting to Harry Browne's memory.
Foreign Policy is where I depart from my libertarian bros and sis.
From what I'm hearing their FP sounds like "better them than me"
It's the equivalent of not giving a crap that your neighborhood has been overrun with gangs as long as they aren't stealing your stuff, or kicking your ass.
To them the entire world could have been taken over by the SU as long as they don't frop a bomb in Kansas. Seems nieve and dangerous. I do agree we should be more measured in where we go though.
but wouldnt you call the police then instead of intervening yourself? wasnt that why the united nations was formed, to keep an eye on such things.
What do you mean why? Google NATO. Try to figure out what their purpose is.
@return135 Hrm, I guess. But I find it funny that I found an anti-tax libertarian. Andrew Napolitano. He's fully anti-tax. But I think he still believes in the government force.
He's likely against income tax, but supports a consumption tax.
Why does libertarianism have such a hard time grasping this simple lesson from history? Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Because people tend to use standing armies and it was no remedy against meddling in Vietnam and Iraq-twice.
The clapping is annoying. This isn’t supposed to be an echo chamber or an episode of “the view”
The case for self-defense is fine. There is no real issue there with the use of military force with most Libertarians. But what about when someone is attacked that has nothing to do with American interests? If you're walking down the street and you see someone being attacked by a stronger person, what do you do? Do you just stand by and say it is not my business to get involved, it doesn't concern me? No, you come to the defense of that weaker person. You stand up for others who can not stand up for themselves. Now, it's one thing if you too are relatively weak, but what if you were that guy on the street and you have a firearm. Do you not use it even just to intimidate the aggressor into backing off? By that logic of "only if it is in American interests" we should not have fought the Nazis or Italians in World War II. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy never attacked America. Only Imperial Japan attacked us at Peal Harbor, the Philippians, Attu Island, and other American instillations in the Pacific. Yet, we came to the defense of our allies who were near defeat in Europe. Also, we ended up coming to liberate those in the death camps. That was a side effect, but had that been a primary reason for our going to war, would you have opposed that? My stance is simple. Yes we defend ourselves, but we also defend others and fight for those oppressed. We do not stand by when genocide occurs. We do not stand by and let weaker nations be dominated by stronger ones. We are the most powerful nation on Earth and we fight for the weakest. If we actually lived up to that then there would be far more peace in the world. North Korea, China, many Muslim nations, and many others would stop oppressing millions of their own peoples. There would be very little invasion of nations (which has admittedly already declined). There would be much less attacks on Americans. Aggressors should fear provoking us because we would certainly retaliate. Back to that picture of seeing this aggression on the street; what if you were already known as a strong person who would stomp out the aggressor pretty rapidly. If a bully is picking on a weaker kid and sees you coming, what should they do? They'd probably high-tail it out of there. You reputation precedes you. That should be the case with America. America should be feared by aggressors. We are not afraid to fight.
"Libertarians" are not agreed as to the morality of the Iraq War and other preventive wars. Libertarians are unanimous in denouncing the Iraq War as unjustified and naked aggression.
@gothnate The COnstitution is superceded by treaty law...Nafta is unconstitutional and it is law becaue it is treaty law..the treaties with the Indian nations is treaty law...In fact the constitution works against the people and if not for the bill of rights then we would not have the relative freedom we have now...I agree with you but you are mis-informed..it whould be that way and I wish it were, but treaties that the people do not vote for can and mostly do supercede our own prescious cons
Its not the job of the American tax payer to defend Europe, Africa, the Middle East or Latin America.
You know who funded Al-Quaeda? The US itself hahaha!
I like stossel, but I can't stand his clapping audience, really can't
Sounds like isolationism, not good news
its not isolationism if we trade with everyone
It's not total isolationism, just military isolationism. Libertarians want open trade & immigration - both of which are not isolationist policies
Don't lie just say "Americans (or their government) have bested interest on that region".
@return135 anti-state libertarians don't exist. Anti state activists are called anarchists. Stop hiding behind titles.
The constant clapping is so annoying.
The US were two years to late to world war 2, to busy procrastinating
Can you blame us for not jumping in after being dragged in that first world war that turned out to be a big mistake?
Was it? That's debatable.
N-a-z-i-s won WW2. Their goal was to kill as many people as possible and they got what they wanted. Everybody else lost by participating. When you see crazy people you run. Don’t fight the insane. If Germany wanted to have Europe, then they should have been allowed to “have it”. Non violently. The Jews should have fled to the US. And the US should have allowed Jews to go to the US instead of blocking them.
Russia killed more Germans than any other country by running the other way and burning cities down so that the germans would freeze to death.
Let nature take its course.