Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2019, 02:07:09 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: NYGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  Are Libertarians pacifists?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Are Libertarians pacifists?
#1Yes  
#2No  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 26

Author Topic: Are Libertarians pacifists?  (Read 6676 times)
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 23, 2004, 06:33:45 pm »

This question applies to both big and little Ls. Are Libertarians pacifists? (please don't answer if you are one)

Just asking out of curiousity of what people think. As you know, we are generally anti-war(at least on Iraq) and non-interventionists. So, I've seen some people say we are, and was just curious what the people here think. (I say a big 'NO', but I'll explain later)
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,425
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2004, 06:58:58 pm »

Isolationism is close enough, so I voted yes.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2004, 07:19:43 pm »

Isolationism is close enough, so I voted yes.

ACK! Another misperception/exaggeration. I'll talk about this later too.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,355


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2004, 07:25:19 pm »

No.

They are not necessarily pacifists, but they often can be.

But my understanding is that most Libertarians favor a citizen militia or something that would defend the homeland if attacked.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2004, 08:26:01 pm »

No.

They are not necessarily pacifists, but they often can be.

But my understanding is that most Libertarians favor a citizen militia or something that would defend the homeland if attacked.

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

Yes, there are many reasons libertarians are not pacifists. Of course, there are pacifist libertarians, but these are not the norm(there are pacifist conservatives too). The more appropriate term for your general libertarian is non-aggressionist. Pacifists advocate that violence should be used for no reason, even self-defense.

Our stance on gun rights is also evidence we aren't pacifists - if you think libertarians are pacifists I dare you to break into Michael Badnarik's house while he is there. You'd see just how non-pacifist he is. Wink

As far as war goes, we are, as I said earlier, non-interventionists for the most part. If attacked, we are perfectly willing to defend the country and retalliate against attackers(I had no problem taking down the Taliban since they were the primary harborers of Al Queda, who did attack us). Also, aren't we the ones constantly saying we need to be ready to overthrow tyrannical government if it comes to us?

Now, on to isolationism - as I said, libertarians are generally non-interventionist, and there is a big difference. Isolationist countries, like Japan was before the U.S. Navy forced them to open trade at gunpoint, do not trade with outsiders and do not welcome outsiders into their borders, as well as not going out into the world themselves. The general libertarian philosophy involves free trade with as many nations as possible and a more open immigration policy, but at the same time not 'policing the world' with our military. I hope the difference is clear.

My policy is slightly less non-interventionist, but still in line with libertarian principles. The biggest mistake made by the old League of Nations was to appease Hitler by ignoring his first few invasions of other countries. It is clear to me that a country that violates the sovereign borders of another nation for the sake of conquest(or some other tyrannical reason, and no, I don't think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was tyrannical, just perhaps bad policy) will not respect the sovereign borders of other nations, therefore they won't respect OUR borders. By ignoring tyrannical conquest, we allow tyrants to become powerful enough to challenge us(as Hitler did). Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor(giving us reason to enter WWII) we may very well be living under a Nazi regime today, because once done suppressing Europe, Hitler would have eventually moved at us. So, I think wars against countries that invade other countries for tyrannical reasons are fine and justified(which is why Saddam should have been taken out the first time we kicked the crap out of him). If there were just one or two tyrants in the worlds, I'd say we should just take them out to save ourselves future trouble, but unfortunately there are too many and we must pick our battles wisely.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,814
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2004, 08:34:28 pm »

Woah, are you kidding?

I'm all for making the military VOLUNTARY but come on. A civillian military with just guns would get crushed. Private armies are a threat to social order.

But no, libertarians aren't pacifists.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2004, 08:54:14 pm »

Woah, are you kidding?

I'm all for making the military VOLUNTARY but come on. A civillian military with just guns would get crushed. Private armies are a threat to social order.

But no, libertarians aren't pacifists.

Regulated state militias(as in the 2nd amendment to the constitution) are fine. Citizen militias would have to be authorized by the states, and could be regulated. They would be good backup for the federal military ground forces in the event of invasion. Essentially they would be a state form of the National Gaurd.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,814
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2004, 09:02:23 pm »

Yeah, that I'm okay with. I'm just saying, don't abolish the federal military.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2004, 09:09:23 pm »

Yeah, that I'm okay with. I'm just saying, don't abolish the federal military.

Oh, no, of course not. That's our 'out of country' military. If there were only state militias it could get to the point where we wouldn't be able to retaliate in the event of an attack - one major reason we got rid of the Articles of Confederation.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,425
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2004, 09:31:50 pm »

I think it all depends on what your definition of pacifism.  I personally define it in a foreign policy sense, which is why I said it was "close enough."

However, I do know that Ayn Rand's philosophy supported the army as one of the few institutions that should be left to government control (the army and the judiciary).  I don't believe she ever advocated decreasing the size of it or anything.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2004, 10:11:17 pm »

However, I do know that Ayn Rand's philosophy supported the army as one of the few institutions that should be left to government control (the army and the judiciary).  I don't believe she ever advocated decreasing the size of it or anything.

Agreed. The main army should be government. In fact military funding is probably the last thing I would cut if I were in charge, and any cuts would just be by increased efficiency.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,470
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2004, 10:45:51 pm »

No, not really.  Although they can be.  Iraq was one of the primary reasons I left the Libertarian party.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,304
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2004, 12:34:08 am »

No.

They are not necessarily pacifists, but they often can be.

But my understanding is that most Libertarians favor a citizen militia or something that would defend the homeland if attacked.

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

Yes, there are many reasons libertarians are not pacifists. Of course, there are pacifist libertarians, but these are not the norm(there are pacifist conservatives too). The more appropriate term for your general libertarian is non-aggressionist. Pacifists advocate that violence should be used for no reason, even self-defense.

Our stance on gun rights is also evidence we aren't pacifists - if you think libertarians are pacifists I dare you to break into Michael Badnarik's house while he is there. You'd see just how non-pacifist he is. Wink

As far as war goes, we are, as I said earlier, non-interventionists for the most part. If attacked, we are perfectly willing to defend the country and retalliate against attackers(I had no problem taking down the Taliban since they were the primary harborers of Al Queda, who did attack us). Also, aren't we the ones constantly saying we need to be ready to overthrow tyrannical government if it comes to us?

Now, on to isolationism - as I said, libertarians are generally non-interventionist, and there is a big difference. Isolationist countries, like Japan was before the U.S. Navy forced them to open trade at gunpoint, do not trade with outsiders and do not welcome outsiders into their borders, as well as not going out into the world themselves. The general libertarian philosophy involves free trade with as many nations as possible and a more open immigration policy, but at the same time not 'policing the world' with our military. I hope the difference is clear.

My policy is slightly less non-interventionist, but still in line with libertarian principles. The biggest mistake made by the old League of Nations was to appease Hitler by ignoring his first few invasions of other countries. It is clear to me that a country that violates the sovereign borders of another nation for the sake of conquest(or some other tyrannical reason, and no, I don't think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was tyrannical, just perhaps bad policy) will not respect the sovereign borders of other nations, therefore they won't respect OUR borders. By ignoring tyrannical conquest, we allow tyrants to become powerful enough to challenge us(as Hitler did). Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor(giving us reason to enter WWII) we may very well be living under a Nazi regime today, because once done suppressing Europe, Hitler would have eventually moved at us. So, I think wars against countries that invade other countries for tyrannical reasons are fine and justified(which is why Saddam should have been taken out the first time we kicked the crap out of him). If there were just one or two tyrants in the worlds, I'd say we should just take them out to save ourselves future trouble, but unfortunately there are too many and we must pick our battles wisely.

I would say that I agree with you pretty much 100% on foreign policy. Though I'm a little more interventionist in that I support the removal of dictators from power if we can get a sufficient coalition (basically enough to tip a cost/benefit analsys in our favor...getting rid of dictators is good, but it's mighty expensive in terms of both lives and dollars), and if the motives of the President can be trusted (truly doing it for the good of humanity and not for money). I tend to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis rather than have a completely blanket policy.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2004, 04:46:07 pm »

No.  I'm all for war, but I think it could be largely privatized.  Imperialism used to be handled by joint stock companies like the British East India Co.  Why not sell Iraq to a consortium of oil companies for $1 an get out?

Hopefull they wouldn't feel so constrained by public opinion. Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,315


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2004, 05:39:30 am »

I would say no, libertarians have nothing inherently pacifist about them. I would however expect most libertarians to strongly dislike the idea of state-sponsored wars, I would expect them to only sanction self-defence against people trying to infringe on other people's liberties.
Logged
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2004, 10:17:26 am »

No, because pacifism cannot be applied to an entire group of people, especially not a political party.
Logged
m3talsmith
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 77


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2004, 06:32:22 pm »

Libertarians are not pacifist, but they are also not aggressors.

Think about what an aggressor is, consider whether it's a proper policy, and then look at our current administration and what kind of administrations are being offered to us by the main parties this year.

I can just say I'm glad I'm a Libertarian.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC