How would a Libertarian President deal with threats, like North Korea?

What is the Libertarian/Christian  view on "National Defense"?

My dad asked an interesting question today. Essentially he asked:

How would a Libertarian President respond to U.S. National Defense issues (e.g. ISIS, North Korea, Iran, etc.)?

My answer is simple: Broken Window Foreign Policy

The emphasis should be on Short, Mission Specific, Police Actions that target single offenses, and not long term offenders. The emphasis should not be on open-ended occupations with a goal of nation building.

More on that at the bottom of this article. Let's walk through the thoughts on this step by step.

The Libertarian Platform on National Defense

The first few sections of the LP Plank #3, Securing Liberty, gives us information about the party position on National Defense. LP.Org (bold added by myself for emphasis):

3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

This means that the USA should almost never be the one to initiate force onto other nations, no matter how "good" our intentions. If other nations want freedom like ours, their people must rise, revolt, and institute their own freedom like our founding fathers did for us. We would be willing to offer insight or advice to those asking for our help, if it serves the interest of our peace, but will not fight their fight.

This falls in line with Christian ideology too. The most loving thing we can do for people is to let them handle their own lives. We can offer advice or counsel when it is sought, but we should not be enabling other's poor choices. Not when it's one-on-one, and not when it's nation to nation either.

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

The evidence is out, the verdict is in. After decades of "nation building" and "international policing", the world is far less safe.  The primary reason the Iraq experiment failed, is that the people did not want the democracy bad enough to overcome the obstacles making it happen themselves.

When the USA enters into conflicts inside other nations, we destabilize the region and allow violent bully factions to take over. This is because the inner will of the people had not built itself into the will to overcome. Scared people will just run to power for protection. One bully is replaced by another bully.

If the people of a nation want new leadership, they'll need to make it happen. The USA should not have been involved. Not to give weapons, not to fight, not at all.

Only in rare instances, when a thirst for a democratic republic can be proven, should we offer advice or counsel (but usually not weapons).

I cannot find a biblical reason for Christian's to endorse the US Government playing policeman of the world in this manner. Individual Churches and Christian's should absolutely go and offer help to the needy, but military force used on behalf of non US Citizens is an abuse of power. *I'm open to adjusting on this point (foreshadowing of things below), more on that in a moment.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

On the surface, the #USPatriotAct seemed like a good idea to a scared nation.

"Protect Us!", the people cried.

So Fascist Dictator... I mean President George Bush instituted arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation in US History (#ObamaCare running a close second). This act gave the US Government power to over-ride your Constitutional rights in the name of safety.

Here's the problem... No human can be trusted with that much power. No human except Jesus, but he's not back yet. Until the return of Jesus, no human or group of humans can be trusted with that power. That's the reason the US Constitution exists in the first place.

Non-US Citizens are not afforded rights under the US Constitution. So some of these rights don't apply when gathering intelligence about a foreign enemy or from a foreign enemy who has publicly declared war on the USA.

We should work to gather intelligence, but never at the expense of US Citizen's Constitutional Rights... never. You want to prove a US Citizen is guilty, they deserve a public trial by jurry. Even if you are the NSA leading the prosecution.

*This is why I do not belive in US Citizen's being put on a national "No Fly" list until an open court jury trial found them guilty of terrorism. I'd rather ten got away than one innocent be persecuted.

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

It's time to cut off all funding of government money to all nations outside the USA. Humanitarian aide sent to other nations should be handled by private people and organizations, not governments.

US Military Force should be used for the defense of US Citizens, and the defenseless innocent.

Christian history proves that the Church is at it's best when it is out there doing the work of the Church outside the walls of the Church.

Schools, Hospitals, Science, and most of the wonderful benefits of modern western society were the result of Christians working in the world. It's the Church, not government intervention, that will benefit people's lives (one-on-one, and nation to nation).

What about ISIS, Iran, North Korea, and Other Threats Yet Un-named?

Let's evaluate "threats".

• If the US had never gotten involved in foreign matters, ISIS wouldn't exist today in it's current form. We helped destabilize the region, and we are adding to it daily by our involvement there. More intervention without a clear short-term plan and purpose is like using more alcohol to cure alcoholism. 

• North Korea is acting out, testing borders, and seeing what they can get away with.

• Iran got money from the USA, and we negotiated with them... What the heck for? Now they are testing new waters, making new threats. They were emboldened by our lack of spine.

The world suffers when the USA gets half involved in anything... They also suffer when we get too involved and overstay our need to be there. But we cannot ignore credible threats to our national security.

Then there is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle)

What I'm about to say may sound like a contradiction of what I've already said... so bare with me, this is nuanced.

The USA should not be out in the world nation building, and forcing everyone else to live like we do... but let's evaluate this further in light of the NAP.

Imagine you are on a playground.

The school bully just walked up to steal someone else's lunch. You let the person handle it themselves, they cower and give it over. Should let that continue? 

The NAP says that you don't harm me, and I don't harm you. That bully harmed that other kid. 

I don't think it's black and white. I see two valid responses.

1. Leave it alone for now. Maybe with some background information (*read intelligence briefing) you learn that the kid would be best served by learning to stand up for himself. In that instance the most loving and moral action would be to leave it alone, and let him learn to stand up. 

2. Act to defend. Maybe you learn with some background (*read intelligence briefing) that the kid is incapable of defending himself (mental or physical handicap). In that case, you have a moral obligation to enforce the NAP against that bully. 

Most people seem to think it's either do nothing, or jump into an all out war and occupy another country for 20 years.

But what if (just like Libertarian's are the third party) there was a third international choice?

Introducing: The Broken Windows Foreign Policy

In Prager U's course "How to fix the World, NYPD style", Bret Stephens sheds an interesting nuance on this debate through the Broken Window theory. He asked how the US can enforce basic rules of Decency, Deter Enemies, and Reassure Friends (sounds like the NAP to me).

Political scientists at Harvard noted that:

One repaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.

By taking swift strategic actions against the worst offenders of the NAP, we can deter others from violating it.

The emphasis should be on Short, Mission Specific, Police Actions that target single offenses, and not long term offenders. The emphasis should not be on open-ended occupations with a goal of nation building.

Someone violates a weaker party that cannot defend itself, in violation of the NAP, the USA will act swiftly to defend. Take out a tower, or city if need be, and step back. Then warn the perpetrator that further violations of the NAP will be met with equal reactions in the future.

The USA would need to back this policy up with actual actions. Trigger must be pulled. But when the world sees we're serious, the majority of would-be violators would loose their nerve.

This isn't to say we jump into every conflict. As I said, most of the time the kid just needs to learn to stand up to the bully himself. But when the defenseless are violated by bully's, it's time to act. The USA should not make a single comment, tweet, or issue a single press release condemning an action of another state; unless it's willing to back it up with decisive action, then leave and wait and watch.

That works in a room, organization, city, nation, and on the international stage.

*Gary Johnson has already proven that he's more devoted to rational answers than staunch ideologies. I'm voting for Gary Johnson; Libertarian Presidential Candidate for 2016, #youin ?

Darrell G. Wolfe

Story Teller | INFJ | Futuristic | Intellection | Learner | Ideation | Achiever | Command | Input | Focus | Multipotentialite

***

Interesting side note: Dave Rubin explains why voting for Gary Johnson (even if he doesn't win) is the right thing to do.

***

How to Fix the World, NYPD-Style is woth watching too:

Read more ...

I am a Conservative-Liberal | Republicans and Democrats are actually the same party, here's why I'm a #ChristianLibertarian

This may come as a surprise to some... but there have not always been just these two political parties... and it may be time for a new third party to rise.

The Majority View of American Politics

In the USA, there are currently two major political parties; Republicans and Democrats. These are not required by law, they are just the result of people's voting habits over time. Any third party could rise to power (as has happened a few times in US History) when people decide the existing parties are not cutting it anymore.

When most people view politics in the United States of America (USA)(American Politics), they see two extremes labeled Left and Right. The person who is neither firmly Left "Liberal" or Right "Conservative" is usually called a Moderate.

"Moderates" or "Independents" are the majority of the US, have views that differ from both parties, but have little say in the primary season. So they are stuck voting for "the lesser of two evils".

*You may or may not know, that there have been several major political parties since our founding over 200 years ago. 

The Majority View of Libertarian Politics

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about a third party: "The Libertarian Party". The word Libertarian invokes the name Ron Paul for most Americans. They are known and advertise themselves as "Social Liberal and Fiscally Conservative".

This leads people to believe that the Libertarian is the Moderate Choice, but most don't vote for them because they don't want whichever Evil they fear elected. So rather than vote for someone closer to their values, they vote against the Majority Party person they like the least.

What if I told you that Democrats and Republicans are the same Party?

They both (in practice) create big government and try to control your life. Big Government, in any form, is Big Government. Whether they are trying to control your money, your rights, or your bedroom, they are still trying to control you.

The Libertarian Party operates on a simple idea called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

The NAP says: You don't cause me harm (either to my body or property) and I won't cause you harm (either to your body or property). Beyond that, we are free to do/be whatever we decide to do/be. 

This is the principal reason The United States of America (USA) was founded. The people were rejecting a government that tried to control them and tell them what they could or could not do, be, worship, etc.

Imagine a world in which a Christian will side with a Gay Married Couple and vote for the same party.

For Christians, Liberty is an even bigger issue. If God didn't want people to have Free Will, he would not have put an option in the garden. God gave all humans a choice to have a relationship with him, or not.

• You should have the right to discuss ideas, debate positions, and argue differences in the open. You should have the right to win friends, and influence people as you are able.

• You have no right to try to force a relationship with God on someone else or force them to choose your way. Likewise, you have no right to force someone to participate in something they don't agree with. You have no right to use the Government to do it.

The fact that Christians sided with so-called Conservative-Republicans to force their way onto the rest of society, has been the chief contributor to creating a bigger government with the ability to control people.

After years of being controlled, the "other" has taken that control and turned it on you. Now the baker can't refuse to do a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Institutions all over the country are being "forced" by the government to take actions contrary to their personal beliefs. Why? Did "the other" cause this? No. The Church caused this, and the "other" took advantage of it for their purposes.

The only proper political position for a Christian is one that allows people the freedom to do/be what they wish, and associate with who they wish. This is the freedom that God gave you. You chose Him, you can't make someone else chose Him.

This freedom allows Gays to marry and Christians to congregate in churches. You can't have one freedom without the other. Take theirs away, and they'll come back and take yours...

oh wait... that's already started.

You may be a Liberal-Conservative, you just don't know it yet.

Fascism (Donald Trump) is commonly mistakenly put out as a "far right" ideology, as though it were opposite of Socialism /Marxism (Hillary Clinton). But that is a false dichotomy, the truth is they are both far to the same side.

The "Liberal" Left

• Socialism /Marxism (Hillary Clinton) advocates for The Collective, "It takes a village to raise a child". 
• Socialism believes that society must regard the whole, not the individual. Each person should contribute according to his ability, and each person should receive according to his need. 
• How do we prevent a person from taking more than they need, or force a person to work to their ability? By taking away free will and free markets, and putting them into The State's control. Only without any private ownership, can society be saved from selfishness... and it's The States' job to enforce that benefit on everyone. 
• Who is The State? Powerful elites that know how to run your life better than you.
• Result: Government Controls You

The Conservative? Right?

• Fascism (Donald Trump) advocates for a strong totalitarian government, people live and die for The State. They promote National identity over individual identity. 
• The Fascist does not want individuals to control, nor the people, but only The State. It fears The People, both individually and collectively. It is against Capitalism (because it favors the individual) and Socialism (because it gives the people too much). 
• Only The State can make decisions that are good for The State. People earn profit so long as they are productive, but The State becomes manager and leader of all business and industry. 
• For the Fascist, the individual is bad, the Nation comes first. "Build a wall" it cries. "Make The State Great Again" it cries. 
• Freedom, Liberty, Self-Ownership are rejected in place of Duty, Discipline, Law, Order, Loyalty to The State. 
• Fascist economic ideology supports the profit motivation but says that businesses must focus on the interest of The State as superior to private profit.
• Result: Government Controls You

The Conservative-Liberal Libertarian View

• Classical Liberals (Libertarians) advocate for the Individual above the collective and state. 
• The individual is free to seek the highest paying work, companies are free to pay whatever they need to pay in order to get the best workers (be that high or low). 
• Free Markets put bad businesses out of business, and ensure only products that people want are made, and sold at prices they people will pay. 
• The Classical Liberal is for small government. Government should protect the people from harming other people (body or property), protect the people from invaders (foreign and domestic), provide a few very basic services to society (roads, fairness standards between parties, laws to serve the prior mentioned purposes).
• The State may institute minimum taxes to pay for only these functions, and stay out of the way for the rest of the time.
• Result: You Control You - Unless you try to hurt me.

So if you look at my personal views, you could say that I'm a conservative by most common definitions. I believe:

• Smoking, Drinking, and any form of drug is bad for your helth; therefore, I abstain from those behaviors.
• I believe in One Man - One Woman - For Life as the ultimate goal of a happy society, and that any alteration from that pattern is unhealthy. 
• I'm not against divorce and remarriage entirely, I've been divorced and remarried, but I'm saying it's not the best and first plan. It should not be taken lightly.
• I don't believe that Gay Marriage is marriage at all, biblically. God is created man and woman to be different. The pairing of the two creates a oneness (a brining together of two each missing something) that does not exist between two same sex individuals, regardless of your desires.
• But my Gay friends are welcome to establish whatever benefits legally and societally they want, and call it what they want. It is a free society.
• I believe that a school without a bible is no school at all. Therefore, I take my freedom in this country to homeschool or use private school or choose some other option.
• The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Proverbs 9:10
• Etc, Etc...

So I guess I'm Conservative (personally) and a Classical Liberal (politically)... 

Confession: "My name is Darrell, and I am a Conservative-Liberal"

In 2016 I'm voting for Gary Johnson, Libertarian for President. Are #YouIn?

Darrell G. Wolfe

Story Teller | INFJ | Futuristic | Intellection | Learner | Ideation | Achiever | Command | Input | Focus | Multipotentialite

***Note on Abortion:: It's true, Gary Johnson is "Pro-Choice". Here's why that doesn't worry me for now.

• Gary Johnson doesn't want to expand or contract existing laws. He's not for 9-month abortions, he simply supports the existing "viability" clause. He's also open to science showing "viability" earlier than the current 
• Not all Libertarians are Pro-Choice. In fact, the party is sharply divided down the middle. I'll take a small government candidate that won't push the Abortion needle either way, over a large government candidate that "says" he's pro-life, but has demonstrated an impressive ability to lie for votes.
• Libertarian's primary view is the NAP. Anyone holding the NAP legitimately has to eventually defend the infant's rights not be violated. 
• I'll take this party long term.The more popular Gary Johsnon makes this party, the more likely other voices (like Austen Petersen)(A runner-up Libertarian Presidential Candidate) will be heard too.

Austin Petersen in studio on the Glenn Beck Show

Read more ...