Freedom. . . to leave.

[BillyC]

I am not saying we should start a draft, everyone in this country is free to either join the military or not.  I am not saying you are required to go out into the streets and wave a flag, everyone in this country is free to show their support or not (unlike in many countries where failing to show support for the party may get you arrested).  I am not even suggesting that we stay there for over fifty years like we have done with both Germany and Japan, just that we stay there long enough to protect the Iraqis as best as we can from terrorists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. and grant their people the support they need for their freedom and safety to flourish.

IMO, the only difference between what you propose and the libertarian viewpoint is that you need to add:

I am not even suggesting that we make you pay for the non-defensive use of our military, everyone in this country is free to contribute or not.

Whether or not Sadam was a potential threat, the fact remains that his army was not invading the US. And today, someone living in the US who decides not to support the war with their taxes will be assaulted, have their property confiscated, and be thrown in jail. Does that sound like freedom to you?

<edit>And Dreepa makes a better point anyway. I gotta put that hammer away </edit>

Well said Minsk

[Marcy]

The Libertarian Platform states "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."

This is consistent with the Constitution:  there is no constitutional mandate for  re-building someone else's country at the expense of the US taxpayer, regargdless of the perceived need, our ability to pull it off, historical precedents or the gratitude of the buildees.

[Alex]

Helpful Advice Portion - If you support the war in Iraq to the point of being nearly a one issue voter on the subject and are willing to ignore protecting the very freedoms we are supposed to be protecting in order to prosecute this war, then I would say that you're probably better off with the Republicans. On the other hand, it can be a hard thing to balance one thing you believe in strongly vs dozens you believe in less strongly though, and in this situation I suspect that over time you will be less satisfied with Republicans than Libertarians. No political party is going to perfectly represent your views and you just have to go with your gut.

Preachy Portion - Yes, Iraq probably was supporting terrorists, but the terrorism inflicted on us by these people has been due almost entirely to our own actions. First, taking land away from the Muslims and creating Israel was not acceptable behavior. Sure, it was a good idea to give the Jews their own country, but why was it necessary to take THIS land in this heavily populated region? Why not give them Wyoming or something? The concept that it used to belong to them doesn't really fly as we're not exactly giving our land back to the Indians, and it makes us hypcrites. Secondly, the Arab world in large part allied with us during the Cold War and allowed us to put military bases on their land. When the Cold War ended, we didn't remove our bases. WTF is that? How happy would you be with China if there were Chinese military bases spread out across the U.S. and China refused to remove them?

[ravelkinbow]

IMO
The FSP does not take a position for or against as the FSP is a one topic organization that does not take a position on anything.  But, leaves the matters up to the participants to do what they feel drawn to do.

Can't speak for the LP not a member.
I am a Constitution Party Member

Personally I support our troops, but not the lies the government used to put us in this war.

[tracysaboe]

I fail to support the existence of a state run military.

Especially in times of peace

A Standing army is actually unconstitutional. What's unconservative about keeping military adventures parred down to Constitutionalism?

Tracy

[Alex]

A Standing army is actually unconstitutional. What's unconservative about keeping military adventures parred down to Constitutionalism?

While this is technically true, they could get around this pretty easily by either making the entire military part of the navy or reorganizing it as a collective of state militias. Not only that, but if the military were ever actually found to be unconstitutional, the Constitution would be amended within weeks. I'm all for strict Constitutional interpretation, but this seems like a pretty poor issue to take a stand on.

[firsty]

indeed. one reality about the late 18th century was that it usually took weeks for an invading navy to show up at the eastern shore of america. there was plenty of time to prepare an army. while we had a standing militia prior to 1941, WWII proved the need for one.

i just wish the US would follow international law as much as we pretended to support it. international laws and UN interventions would work a lot better if they had the support of the richest nation in the world.

[Alex]

i just wish the US would follow international law as much as we pretended to support it. international laws and UN interventions would work a lot better if they had the support of the richest nation in the world.

There is no international law. Giving an international entity authority over the U.S. is unconstitutional.

The U.N has no right to intervene in the affairs of nations unless asked for help. If asked for the help, it is immoral to provide help paid for by involuntary taxpayers.

[tracysaboe]

Agreed. Also bad idea.

Tracy

[firsty]

this is interesting to me - can you suggest some reading i can do about the idea of international conflict within the libertarian ideas? where i'm coming from is the idea that physical boundaries between nations are growing less substantial compared to information sharing and free movement from place to place. i'd like to edu-mecate myself a bit about this. any suggestions are welcome!

[Alex]

this is interesting to me - can you suggest some reading i can do about the idea of international conflict within the libertarian ideas? where i'm coming from is the idea that physical boundaries between nations are growing less substantial compared to information sharing and free movement from place to place. i'd like to edu-mecate myself a bit about this. any suggestions are welcome!

The only thing particularly antilibertarian is using taxation to fund these endeavors, since those who don't agree with them shouldn't have to pay. Other than that bit, different libertarians will disagree on whether or not "aiding" other countries is acceptable.

As for the idea that physical boundaries are growing less substantial... this is good and bad. If it leads to more centralized laws, it's a bad thing as the more people a law affects, the more tyrannical it is (even if the law is entirely liberty oriented!!). If it doesn't lead to a more centralized government, then it's obviously a wonderful thing.

[firsty]

about physical boundaries / good and bad: yes. but, either way, it's a reality.

personally i think it's good, but there are going to be (and are, currently) some dramatically horrible growing pains that go with this. cultures crashing into one another. the worst of corpgov clashing with the best of insular cultures, or even the best of one with the best of another, these are all causing problems.

one minor good point - we're starting to see the trend of outsourcing hit the point of diminishing returns. overseas labor is starting to want more $$$, and overseas markets are becoming more demanding as well. until overseas labor/market equals domestic labor/market, we're going to have problems. but many companies are stepping back from some overseas labor.

the taxation thing is true. i get you there. if thats the crux of it, i can understand. but, really, isnt it more a matter of having real elected officials who are willing and able to actually represent their constituency? i'd be more willing to let the govt decide where my tax $$$ go if i were confident that they were making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, rather than themselves.

[Minsk]

the taxation thing is true. i get you there. if thats the crux of it, i can understand. but, really, isnt it more a matter of having real elected officials who are willing and able to actually represent their constituency? i'd be more willing to let the govt decide where my tax $$$ go if i were confident that they were making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, rather than themselves.

The response you will find a lot related to "serve the best interests of the people" comes in three parts:

First off, power corrupts. Because politicians have power, and corrupt people are drawn to power, and power will generally corrupt people farther, it is a little utopian to expect them to be selfless.

Second, elected terms in office inherently produce a short view. If a politician can vote for a subsidy for their district that will hurt in the long run, should they vote against it and get thrown out of office?

Third, what granuality of "people". Should the politician fight tooth and nail to benefit the local constituents and screw the rest of the country? The other way around? What about the state? For the benefit of the majority at the pain of the minority?

So, honestly, I have trouble saying how I would like an elected politician to make decisions. And even if I could, they would still want to work in their own best interests; which means coddling their voters to keep getting elected, and screwing the future generations. On that basis, I feel fairly comfortable stating that the way to improve things is to drastically limit the power of the politicians.

[Pat McCotter]

...
If it leads to more centralized laws, it's a bad thing as the more people a law affects, the more tyrannical it is (even if the law is entirely liberty oriented!!). If it doesn't lead to a more centralized government, then it's obviously a wonderful thing.

No, the more people affected by a legislative body the less representation those people have. It can be the most benevolent government around but as more people fall under its aegis the less say the people have in the laws being made.

Decentralize the government as much as possible.

[Kat Kanning]

Let every man govern himself.  That would be decentralized enough.