In Search of Libertarian Realism - Reason.com - Matt Welch, Reason (January 2015):
December 8, 2014 - "For the next decade [after the invasion of Iraq] ... American appetite for war, occupation, and the concomitant surveillance state went on a steady and uninterrupted decline, culminating in the shockingly successful September 2013 public and congressional revolt against President Barack Obama's plans to attack Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. With the occupation of Afghanistan becoming the most unpopular war in recorded U.S. history, and with people telling pollsters they feared their own government more than they feared terrorists, it became possible to imagine a cross-ideological coalition against war, spanning from the progressive left to the constitutional-conservative right, and headed up by the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
"But 2014 has complicated that narrative. The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) within war-torn Syria, Iraq, and Libya halted the public's decade-long bear market on war, with more Americans favoring combat troops against ISIS in October than in September....
"With Rand Paul at or near the top of GOP presidential polls for 2016, the principled noninterventionism of his father is colliding with the complications not just of the Islamic State but of Washington politics. If Ron's project is to spread the pure principles of anti-intervention, Rand's is to see how much anti-intervention he can sneak into the mainstream diet. These differing approaches — and the different men behind them — have triggered all sorts of fierce debates about what a libertarian foreign policy really looks like.
"The Hoover Institution's Richard Epstein, in a September piece titled 'Rand Paul's Fatal Pacifism,' criticized libertarians for being 'clueless on the ISIS front,' arguing that 'In principle, even deadly force can be used in anticipation of an attack by others, lest any delayed response prove fatal.'
"Responding at Antiwar.com, reason Contributing Editor David R. Henderson countered that 'whatever else libertarian non-interventionists believe, few of us have what Professor Epstein calls an "illusion of certainty." It is the exact opposite: we are positive that there is great uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that should, in general, cause us to pressure our government to stay out of other countries' affairs.'
"So who's right? And what should libertarian principles about foreign policy look like after colliding with messy reality? In the pages ahead, we have convened a forum of self-identified libertarians who have a range of informed opinions on U.S. foreign policy. The results are designed to start a debate rather than finish it, to take a thoroughgoing skepticism about intervention into the realm of the real. In short, it's a search for libertarian realism."
Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/in-search-of-libertarian-reali
'via Blog this'
December 8, 2014 - "For the next decade [after the invasion of Iraq] ... American appetite for war, occupation, and the concomitant surveillance state went on a steady and uninterrupted decline, culminating in the shockingly successful September 2013 public and congressional revolt against President Barack Obama's plans to attack Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. With the occupation of Afghanistan becoming the most unpopular war in recorded U.S. history, and with people telling pollsters they feared their own government more than they feared terrorists, it became possible to imagine a cross-ideological coalition against war, spanning from the progressive left to the constitutional-conservative right, and headed up by the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
"But 2014 has complicated that narrative. The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) within war-torn Syria, Iraq, and Libya halted the public's decade-long bear market on war, with more Americans favoring combat troops against ISIS in October than in September....
"With Rand Paul at or near the top of GOP presidential polls for 2016, the principled noninterventionism of his father is colliding with the complications not just of the Islamic State but of Washington politics. If Ron's project is to spread the pure principles of anti-intervention, Rand's is to see how much anti-intervention he can sneak into the mainstream diet. These differing approaches — and the different men behind them — have triggered all sorts of fierce debates about what a libertarian foreign policy really looks like.
"The Hoover Institution's Richard Epstein, in a September piece titled 'Rand Paul's Fatal Pacifism,' criticized libertarians for being 'clueless on the ISIS front,' arguing that 'In principle, even deadly force can be used in anticipation of an attack by others, lest any delayed response prove fatal.'
"Responding at Antiwar.com, reason Contributing Editor David R. Henderson countered that 'whatever else libertarian non-interventionists believe, few of us have what Professor Epstein calls an "illusion of certainty." It is the exact opposite: we are positive that there is great uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that should, in general, cause us to pressure our government to stay out of other countries' affairs.'
"So who's right? And what should libertarian principles about foreign policy look like after colliding with messy reality? In the pages ahead, we have convened a forum of self-identified libertarians who have a range of informed opinions on U.S. foreign policy. The results are designed to start a debate rather than finish it, to take a thoroughgoing skepticism about intervention into the realm of the real. In short, it's a search for libertarian realism."
Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/in-search-of-libertarian-reali
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment