Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy (Read 2468 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11881
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
May 27th, 2019 at 3:17pm
Print Post  
The US tried it in 1939 and 1940.  We tried to remain neutral - militarily, anyways.

In June 1940, Congress passed the Export Control Act, which prohibited the export of “strategic minerals and chemicals, aircraft engines, parts, and equipment” to Japan.

Naturally, Japan didn't like this Act - they relied heavily on the US for these things.

In July of 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets in the United States and placed an embargo on crude oil.

Most people know the rest of the story.

Years before,  Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act passed, which allowed him to grant "most favored nation" trade status to countries with which the US worked out sweetheart trade agreements.

It was the political alliances forged by the RTA Act that utlimately put the US in jeopardy. 

If the US had just maintained neutrality, Japan would have no reason to attack Pearl Harbor.

Of course, after WW II, political entanglements worsened, and Truman committed US troops to intervene in the Korean War.   China immediately mobilized ground troops which killed many US soldiers.

33,643 US servicemen died after the dust settled.  Over 7000 remain "unaccounted for" .

US intervention is the modern foreign policy.   We became the World's Policeman.   That needs to stop.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47949
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #1 - May 27th, 2019 at 6:58pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 27th, 2019 at 3:17pm:
The US tried it in 1939 and 1940.  We tried to remain neutral - militarily, anyways.

In June 1940, Congress passed the Export Control Act, which prohibited the export of “strategic minerals and chemicals, aircraft engines, parts, and equipment” to Japan.

Naturally, Japan didn't like this Act - they relied heavily on the US for these things.

In July of 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets in the United States and placed an embargo on crude oil.

Most people know the rest of the story.

Years before,  Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act passed, which allowed him to grant "most favored nation" trade status to countries with which the US worked out sweetheart trade agreements.

It was the political alliances forged by the RTA Act that utlimately put the US in jeopardy. 

If the US had just maintained neutrality, Japan would have no reason to attack Pearl Harbor.

Of course, after WW II, political entanglements worsened, and Truman committed US troops to intervene in the Korean War.   China immediately mobilized ground troops which killed many US soldiers.

33,643 US servicemen died after the dust settled.  Over 7000 remain "unaccounted for" .

US intervention is the modern foreign policy.   We became the World's Policeman.   That needs to stop.
Fooch.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8137
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #2 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:17am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 27th, 2019 at 3:17pm:
The US tried it in 1939 and 1940.  We tried to remain neutral - militarily, anyways.

In June 1940, Congress passed the Export Control Act, which prohibited the export of “strategic minerals and chemicals, aircraft engines, parts, and equipment” to Japan.

Naturally, Japan didn't like this Act - they relied heavily on the US for these things.

In July of 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets in the United States and placed an embargo on crude oil.

Most people know the rest of the story.

Years before,  Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act passed, which allowed him to grant "most favored nation" trade status to countries with which the US worked out sweetheart trade agreements.

It was the political alliances forged by the RTA Act that utlimately put the US in jeopardy. 

If the US had just maintained neutrality, Japan would have no reason to attack Pearl Harbor.

Of course, after WW II, political entanglements worsened, and Truman committed US troops to intervene in the Korean War.   China immediately mobilized ground troops which killed many US soldiers.

33,643 US servicemen died after the dust settled.  Over 7000 remain "unaccounted for" .

US intervention is the modern foreign policy.   We became the World's Policeman.   That needs to stop.


So if Nazi Germany spanned from England to Africa to Russia and Empirical Japan controlled the entire pacific basin, it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us?  You know Mexico also had direct connections to the Nazis, they were very keen on regaining our southwestern States.

I can't see that.  Without the US, both the Europeans and Pacific countries were in serious trouble.  And we'd have no allies then since we weren't anyone's ally

  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11316
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #3 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:28am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:17am:
So if Nazi Germany spanned from England to Africa to Russia and Empirical Japan controlled the entire pacific basin, it would be a better world


I don't think it's our job to make the world better.

Thinking it is has made the world a lot worse.

America had your own travesty: Slavery. You got out of it on your own. We'll be paying for it for the rest of our lives, and our children's lives, and on and on as long as those children have children.

You burned witches too. (Nobody expects anyone owes Pagans any reparations, though. Maybe that's because Pagans aren't pushy and demanding; they're just pretty chill, dunno. Oh well, tangent.)

Would you really prefer if my people (the Vulcans, not the Brits) came after you to make you stop? Would you prefer being beaten out of your atrocities to evolving out of them? Do you think the former has good results?

Star Trek is written for the Prime Directive to be wrong; often an obstacle to doing the right thing.

But I believe the Prime Directive is right.

I believe you do harm to people when you beat them into doing the right thing as opposed to letting them figure it out themselves. And I also believe that when you do this, you do harm to yourself.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8137
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #4 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:34am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:28am:
I don't think it's our job to make the world better.

Thinking it is has made the world a lot worse.


Now here even though you didn't change my words, it is fundamentally dishonest because you cut the quote to mislead what I said.  Here's the full statement, with the critical part you cut:

"it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us"

You're a liar.  I said it would not be a better world ... for us ... dumb ass
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11316
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #5 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:42am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:34am:
Now here even though you didn't change my words, it is fundamentally dishonest because you cut the quote to mislead what I said.  Here's the full statement, with the critical part you cut:

"it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us"

You're a liar.  I said it would not be a better world ... for us ... dumb ass


You said and.

So if Nazi Germany spanned from England to Africa to Russia and Empirical Japan controlled the entire pacific basin, it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us?

Insofar as someone is threatening us, then if the military has a job, part of that is to fight back.

I don't think "he's too big, he's too powerful, he's aggressive" counts as a direct threat.

If it did, that would give everyone else grounds to attack America.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8137
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #6 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:50am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:42am:
You said and.

So if Nazi Germany spanned from England to Africa to Russia and Empirical Japan controlled the entire pacific basin, it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us?

Insofar as someone is threatening us, then if the military has a job, part of that is to fight back.

I don't think "he's too big, he's too powerful, he's aggressive" counts as a direct threat.

If it did, that would give everyone else grounds to attack America.


And means both, at the same time.  Funny how that works.

Now you're to the level of Clinton with it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

You idiots constantly arguing definitions are pathetic
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11316
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #7 - May 28th, 2019 at 9:57am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:50am:
And means both, at the same time.


Right, so I can address the first part without the latter.

You're the one arguing definitions and blowing up at people for addressing what you said, not what you meant.

Maybe we would be better off just leaving everyone alone. Maybe Nazi Germany would have grown out of its own atrocities and maybe they'd be paying reparations now.

Attack because of a direct threat. Not because you imagine you'll be better off if you attack. That was all I was trying to say.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8137
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #8 - May 28th, 2019 at 10:13am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:57am:
Right, so I can address the first part without the latter


No, because the latter was important and contradicted what you said about the first part. The only people's who's interest I mentioned was our interest.  You can't spin your way out of that

The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:57am:
You're the one arguing definitions and blowing up at people for addressing what you said, not what you meant.


Um ... this is "blowing up?"

kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:50am:
And means both, at the same time.  Funny how that works.

Now you're to the level of Clinton with it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

You idiots constantly arguing definitions are pathetic



The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:57am:
Maybe we would be better off just leaving everyone alone. Maybe Nazi Germany would have grown out of its own atrocities and maybe they'd be paying reparations now.

Attack because of a direct threat. Not because you imagine you'll be better off if you attack. That was all I was trying to say.


Right.  Germany and Japan were direct threats to our liberty.  If you aren't an ally, then you won't have any allies.  Our liberty was far better served by directly intervening while we had the chance to win.

You're turning into Jeff, you just want to bicker
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11881
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Reply #9 - May 28th, 2019 at 10:40am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:17am:
So if Nazi Germany spanned from England to Africa to Russia and Empirical Japan controlled the entire pacific basin, it would be a better world and we'd be better off and not under a constant threat with no allies since we weren't anyone's ally to work with us?  

Hitler declared war against the US.  US had no option but to choose allies and fight.

kaz wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 9:17am:
Without the US, both the Europeans and Pacific countries were in serious trouble.  And we'd have no allies then since we weren't anyone's ally
Right.

Churchill was actually relieved to hear that Hitler had declared war against the US.   He knew that Britain would eventually be defeated by the Wehrmacht without US involvement.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › A Libertarian Approach To Foreign Policy
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy