2012 Libertarian Party Platform

[elder999]

The US has been at war since my grandfathers fought in WWII. We've had a war finance scheme since 1913.

I might take some convincing on that, but the date isn't worth arguing about.

I think maybe you need to put a few more zeros after your number....like 4 or 5.

Nah. Relative wealth is insulation from the effects of warfare, even for the draft, sometimes. While we can argue about the specifics of that, what with Mr. Romney saying that $250000 is "middle-class"-something I agree with-it's still ebough to keep one from being as adversely affected by warfare as others.

Libertarian foriegn policy wouldn't have created and funded Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. The Jews would still be safe and so would the Brits.

Really??

That's a stretch-we're talking about the U.S. here-and, in a way, you're proving my point: Hitler wouldn't ahve implemented a Libertarian foreign policy, nor would he have been contained by one. The stated non-interventionist policy of the Libertarian party is as naive as your above statement.

It's too late for a lot of young men and women who are going to pay the ultimate price for continuing and worthless mistakes. And it's too late for the unborn who will have to pay for this mess.

Too late to reverse global warming. Too late to avert the coming economic catastrophe in 2013. Too late to do anything but reelect Barack Obama. Too late to stop Iran from enriching weapons grade uranium, and nuclear weapons. Too late, too late, too late

Yes-way out of Hopium, for more than 12 years now...

 

[Makalakumu]

That's a stretch-we're talking about the U.S. here-and, in a way, you're proving my point: Hitler wouldn't ahve implemented a Libertarian foreign policy, nor would he have been contained by one. The stated non-interventionist policy of the Libertarian party is as naive as your above statement....

Interventionism created Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, the Shaw, Al Qaeda, etc. I could go on and on.

But I see your point, we can't turn back the clock and show Wilson just how bad he would **** us by letting Col. House talk him into WWI (That's what really created Hitler btw). It's like all of our mistakes have created a time bomb and many see stepping away as just letting the mother****er blow up. The problem with this thinking is that we essentially believe that we can diffuse this bomb by using more bombs. In the end, the problem gets worse and worse. So, where does it end? Thermonuclear war? Is that what this chain of consequences has to progress to before people realize it's just more humane to stay out of other people's business?

So, what happens if we step away now and tell all of these people our government has ****ed with for generations that we're really sorry, but we're not going to mess with your lives anymore. Some people are still going to be pissed. Fathers who lost there families in drone strikes are still going to seek revenge, but at least we wouldn't be making any more enemies. This is why non-interventionism is so obviously the only solution that could ever bring peace in the long term...unless it's just too god damn late...but then I say **** it, we're ****ed anyway, we might as well go down in history as the only nation that has ever tried to pull itself back from the brink.

Anyway, I know the financiers and their puppet corporations will never let this happen and Americans are too propagandized to be able to see anything beyond the false left right paradigm. We had a chance with Ron Paul, but that's gone...the peaceniks can go and pound some more sand.

 

[WC_lun]

We cannot isolate ourselves from the world. It just is not feasable or smart policy. What we can do, and should have been doing all along, is look at policy, especially foriegn policy, on how it will pan out 50 years from now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that involving ourselves in the internal politics of other nations, supporting and in some case propping up dictators, and invading foriegn countries would have a negative effect long term. basically, if you act immorally in your decisions, it ill come back to bite you in the backside. That's as true of nations as it is for individuals.

 

[Makalakumu]

We cannot isolate ourselves from the world. It just is not feasable or smart policy. What we can do, and should have been doing all along, is look at policy, especially foriegn policy, on how it will pan out 50 years from now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that involving ourselves in the internal politics of other nations, supporting and in some case propping up dictators, and invading foriegn countries would have a negative effect long term. basically, if you act immorally in your decisions, it ill come back to bite you in the backside. That's as true of nations as it is for individuals.

Non-intervention is not isolationism. We can still talk and trade, but we'll keep the guns at home for defense. That's all that is being suggested here.

 

[elder999]

Non-intervention is not isolationism. We can still talk and trade, but we'll keep the guns at home for defense. That's all that is being suggested here.

Never work, unless EVERYONE else is doing it. Otherwise, we wind up with "Hitler" on the Jersey shore. :lfao:

 

[pgsmith]

What we can do, and should have been doing all along, is look at policy, especially foriegn policy, on how it will pan out 50 years from now.

That's crazy talk! That does NOT gain the politicians either another elected term, nor any monetary compensation. Therefore, it is not something to be considered.

 

[granfire]

Never work, unless EVERYONE else is doing it. Otherwise, we wind up with "Hitler" on the Jersey shore. :lfao:

Snookie will take care of him!

 

[Makalakumu]

Never work, unless EVERYONE else is doing it. Otherwise, we wind up with "Hitler" on the Jersey shore. :lfao:

This thread has been Godwined so many times...lol.

When you consider where dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, come from, you'll see that they simply don't spring up from no where to threaten the world. I know that's what the general dogmatic propaganda says and that's what is crammed into our children's head in school, but it's not true.

All of these people were funded and supported by the West. In Hitler's case, none other than Prescott Bush was trading weapons with the Germans as late as 1943. Give me a break with this "Who is going to stop a Hitler" fallacy. It exactly like growing a dangerous dog in my basement and releasing it in neighborhoods where i'd like to promote my dog catcher service. Then, convincing the people that this beast came out of nowhere and that they'll always need me to protect them because you never know when another dog might come rampaging.

Here's a dose of reality. These threats to the world are part of the grand chessboard games that the elite play. The US and Britain, the anglo-american empire, are pretty much the prime movers in this game. Non-interventionism puts a stop to it because we're the biggest problem the world has when it comes to promoting peace.

 

[Makalakumu]

Boy if my drivel didn't immediately convert you, maybe this will...lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scZJVhjDGo&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s

 

[Rich Parsons]

Governmental Isolation is not the issue. It is poking the enemy with sticks that is the issue.
When people who are independant go and try to change a culture becuase their idea or belief systems tell them too, and they believe they are right and sometimes Rightous this leads to conflict. There are only two other conditions that lead to more conflict and both can be tied together, one is lack of a particular resource and having to go get it. Sometimes people think it is cheaper to take it then to buy or trade for it. The other is over population, which is usually lack of food and possible health care for the conditions.

In WWI and the years before Isolationism did not work. People still traded. Companies still made deals. The other countries at war saw this trade and were not happy with it. If you trade with only one side or both it does not matter someone will be upset. Ignoring the world is not going to solve the problems. I give the case of the US Voter. They have ignored (with voting numbers / percentages) the Governemnt hoping it will solve itself. It has only gotten better. Yes even if everyone gets involved and votes or takes action or exercises their responsibilities as citizens, there will be some that are upset.

 

[Makalakumu]

Governmental Isolation is not the issue. It is poking the enemy with sticks that is the issue.
When people who are independant go and try to change a culture becuase their idea or belief systems tell them too, and they believe they are right and sometimes Rightous this leads to conflict. There are only two other conditions that lead to more conflict and both can be tied together, one is lack of a particular resource and having to go get it. Sometimes people think it is cheaper to take it then to buy or trade for it. The other is over population, which is usually lack of food and possible health care for the conditions.

In WWI and the years before Isolationism did not work. People still traded. Companies still made deals. The other countries at war saw this trade and were not happy with it. If you trade with only one side or both it does not matter someone will be upset. Ignoring the world is not going to solve the problems. I give the case of the US Voter. They have ignored (with voting numbers / percentages) the Governemnt hoping it will solve itself. It has only gotten better. Yes even if everyone gets involved and votes or takes action or exercises their responsibilities as citizens, there will be some that are upset.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism. Like I said above, we'd still trade and talk, but we'd leave our guns at home and...heaven forbid, actually pay market price for goods.

It's fallacious to conflate these two different policies.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Tokugawa Japanese were isolationist. Pre-WWI America already had an imperial foreign policy. Hawaii was annexed, we fought the Spanish/American war, Commodore Perry ended the real isolationism of Japan, we had military engagements all over central and South America, listen to the words of Smedley Butler, a highly decorated Marine, as he explains how war is a racket. He could give the same speech now and it would be evergreen.

I think it could be argued that our Imperial Foreign Policy goes all of the way back to the Founding Fathers. The Indian Wars were an expansionist imperial policy. The Annexation of Texas led directly to the Mexican American war, which was another imperial adventure. Hell, the US even invaded Canada.

The biggest difference between our policy in the two centuries described above is that one occurred within the confines of North America (for the most part) and the other occurred abroad. IMO, the classification of pre-WWI policy as "Isolationist" is nothing but pure revisionist history. It's propaganda designed to get the American people to justify invading the rest of the world. This narrative has been crammed down our children's throats in classrooms in the form of books with titles like, "The Unfinished Nation" whose very title hints at the greater purpose of America, an ethos of Imperialism.

Our current US policy isn't too much different. George Kennan summed it up in NSC 1/1 in 1947, this was the first official policy statement that came from the policy planning council in the US State Department and would eventually become the marching orders for the CIA.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth and only 6.3% of it's population, our real task in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity. To do that, we are going to have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism. We should cease to talk about vague, unreal, standards such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off where we will have to deal in straight power concepts."

That day arrived November 22nd, 1963 at 12:30 pm.

I think it can be safely said that the US has NEVER had an isolationist OR non-interventionist foreign policy. That said, what the Libertarians suggest is actually unique in American history. It hasn't been tried before. It's been talked about. Smedley Butler, whom I cited above, talked about it in the speech I quoted. He stated that it would have been a great solution. Kennedy tried to implement it...and we saw what happened to him. Well, great ideas never seem to die, they only get ignored and I think that if we truly let other countries trade equally and we stopped using force to get what we wanted, we would be forging a completely new path for America.

 

[pgsmith]

I like your outlook, but have one small quibble with it ...

The Annexation of Texas led directly to the Mexican American war, which was another imperial adventure.

That's not really true. The Mexican-Texas war was already on its way, and the Republic of Texas did not feel like they were going to be able to win it. Therefore, they applied for statehood in order to have the US back them and help them defeat the Mexican government. The Texas leadership at the time decided that Texas would be better off under the US rather than under Mexico, since they weren't going to be able to continue as an independent nation.

 

[Makalakumu]

I like your outlook, but have one small quibble with it ...

That's not really true. The Mexican-Texas war was already on its way, and the Republic of Texas did not feel like they were going to be able to win it. Therefore, they applied for statehood in order to have the US back them and help them defeat the Mexican government. The Texas leadership at the time decided that Texas would be better off under the US rather than under Mexico, since they weren't going to be able to continue as an independent nation.

I see your point. It seems like grease on the skids though. The US was more than happy to oblige the Republic of Texas. I was in Austin this summer, btw. I toured the Capital and walked through all of the Old Republic artifacts. Interesting stuff!