Are Libertarians Isolationist?

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, if you look at things like this, yes, we are!

[JD Barleycorn]

Most libertarians I hear would let someone else come to your neighbor's house, burn it down, rape the wife, and kill the kids without lifting a finger to help. It seems that those freedoms only exist on your side of the fence.

[Guest123018-4]

I consider myself to be a Libertarian and I am not an isolationist. I just think we don't need to be in every damn nation in the world or be giving money to enemies. I also think we should be getting paid to be in some of the places where we are supplying forces to be3 a detriment to attack.
I do not think that we spend our money wisely and definitely spend it in excess.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Most libertarians I hear would let someone else come to your neighbor's house, burn it down, rape the wife, and kill the kids without lifting a finger to help. It seems that those freedoms only exist on your side of the fence.

No most libertarians do not care if you go help your neighbor. They just do not want you to take their tax dollars and send their kids off to war in doing what you think is right.

That is because most libertarians think you hypocrites pick and choose which neighbors to help. You help them with others tax dollars , when what we think the right thing to do is for you to send your own money to what ever cause you believe in.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, if you look at things like this, yes, we are!

Amen COGster!

[Iaintliein]

I prefer the term "porcupine libertarian", isolationist to the point of don't fuck with us and we won't fuck with you, but fuck with us and you will be truly and completely fucked.

[jbravo_123]

I'm all for going over to my neighbor's house and putting out the fire that they started and refuse to put out since it's going to eventually come over to my house and be a bigger pain in my ass.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I'm all for going over to my neighbor's house and putting out the fire that they started and refuse to put out since it's going to eventually come over to my house and be a bigger pain in my ass.

+1 . . . and it would help if other countries shared those isolationist ideas.

North Korea cancels Korean War truce with South Korea

North Korea nullified its 1953 armistice with South Korea on Monday, according to The New York Times, following through on its threat from last week.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...nullified.html

North Korea Threatens Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike Against U.S.

UNITED NATIONS -- North Korea vowed on Thursday to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2826846.html

[i'va biggen]

Re UP

[JD Barleycorn]

As the bard said, "Aye, there's the rub." Every dollar spent by the federal government IS a taxpayer dollar even if it is necessary or frivolous. Now that neighbor who runs next door to help asks to use your garden hose to put out the fire and your libertarian would say NO. Not with my money. Common sense says that if the house next door continues to burn that it is likely to singe your house if not catch it on fire. It is in your self interest to get the fire next door put out. Is it worth your money now? Also the house next door has a serious rodent problem and they have to have some place to live. Your house now becomes the next best thing to the house that is on fire. Sometimes you have to get involved and it will cost you. You have to have enough experience, common sense, smarts, what ever you want to call it, to know when it is your best interest to intervene.

In the real world; we had an interest in bombing the hell out of Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the Taliban destroyed. We had an interest in seeing them not regroup. When we lost our focus, and our will to win, we should have gotten out. Our interest was done.
If a narco terrorist takes over in Mexico as dictator then we have an interest in preventing hundreds of thousand more people crossing into our country as refugees. I would like that they stick it out and take their country back...in fact that may be a solution for us. Arm the refugees and have them take their own country back.

The only other choice is to have private backing for our military operations. You know, mercenaries. We don't use mercenaries but maybe we could put together a "foreign legion" who fight for the benefit of American companies but don't follow the Geneva convention or any other rules of warfare as we know it. We could covertly set them up on a small island with back door funding and a small supply of nuclear weapons.

Realistically, if we can't find a national interest then we should stay out. If we intervene then I support the idea of a mutually beneficial contract. Oil for freedom, or uranium for freedom, or tungsten for intervention against an agressive neighbor.

[jbravo_123]

Yeah it's really easy for people to say they want us to stay out of other countries, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

Do we sit back and do nothing if something happens to our citizens overseas?

What happens if we're attacked by an organization, but not a country? (Ie, the 9/11 situation)

Do we do anything if one of our long term allies is under attack and requests our aid?

This is just the tip of the iceburg and just like all real life international issues, the situation is way too complex to be boiled down into a 10 word phrase.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As the bard said, "Aye, there's the rub." Every dollar spent by the federal government IS a taxpayer dollar even if it is necessary or frivolous. Now that neighbor who runs next door to help asks to use your garden hose to put out the fire and your libertarian would say NO. Not with my money. Common sense says that if the house next door continues to burn that it is likely to singe your house if not catch it on fire. It is in your self interest to get the fire next door put out. Is it worth your money now? Also the house next door has a serious rodent problem and they have to have some place to live. Your house now becomes the next best thing to the house that is on fire. Sometimes you have to get involved and it will cost you. You have to have enough experience, common sense, smarts, what ever you want to call it, to know when it is your best interest to intervene.

.

You do realize that that is the exact same argument people use for national healthcare.

Wait, I forgot who I was typing to, of course you don't.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Most libertarians I hear would let someone else come to your neighbor's house, burn it down, rape the wife, and kill the kids without lifting a finger to help. It seems that those freedoms only exist on your side of the fence.

C'mon, JD, I expect such bullshit from the usual suspects around here, but you're better than that.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I consider myself to be a Libertarian and I am not an isolationist. I just think we don't need to be in every damn nation in the world or be giving money to enemies. I also think we should be getting paid to be in some of the places where we are supplying forces to be3 a detriment to attack.
I do not think that we spend our money wisely and definitely spend it in excess.

We have become the worlds enabler, the last group we have
decided to enable, The Muslim Brotherhood.

[CuteOldGuy]