I hear many Libertarians spout off an isolationalist view. Could you explain how it would be a good thing for our nation? I hear it preached yet have yet to hear why folks are convinced its a good idea. Please help me understand.

Thanks.

I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist.

Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist.

So you are against the current Iraq war?

Because like many complicated concepts, idiots like the simple buzz words that they subsitute for logic.

Isolationism is great if we are a farming based country, and economy.

As soon as we need oil from the Middle East, raw materials from Africa, research from Europe, consumer products from Asia, as well as trying to sell our products around the world, isolationism is impossible.

Quoted: Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist. So you are against the current Iraq war?

No, as this affects our Nation directly.

The expansion of the Federal Government, the abandonment of the Constitution, and the intervention of US forces in conflicts around the globe are all very closely linked.


I don't advocate absolute isolationism.  But I don't think we should abandon the constitution just so we can say we're some kind of great empire either.

Honestly, what can you say we've gained through constant meddling in affairs that didn't concern us?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist. So you are against the current Iraq war? No, as this affects our Nation directly.

What about building them schools and infastructure?

Quoted: Because like many complicated concepts, idiots like the simple buzz words that they subsitute for logic. Isolationism is great if we are a farming based country, and economy. As soon as we need oil from the Middle East, raw materials from Africa, research from Europe, consumer products from Asia, as well as trying to sell our products around the world, isolationism is impossible.

I assure you that I am not an idiot. I fully realize how impractical it would be at this point to return to "isolationism." However, if we had the "will" we could reduce our dependence on oil and raw material imports.  As to selling our products overseas I have a problem with all of these so-called free trade treaties which are leveled against the American worker/businessman,etc. The playing field is not level in this area. So, am I an idiot in your eyes?

Because "those who do not remember history are bound to repeat it."

Isolationism was a valid concept back in washingtons day, when the US had a geographic advatange of being very hard to invade or attack. Now, with travel around the world possible in a day and those willing to attack us capable of doing so from afar it loses validity.

The best defense is a good offense, and that means taking the fight to your enemy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist. So you are against the current Iraq war? No, as this affects our Nation directly.[/quote What about building them schools and infastructure?

Why can't we charge them a little bit by having some of their oil in exchange for the blood and treasure we have spent to free them from sadaam? I'm not against helping them but must we foot the entire bill?

Quoted: The expansion of the Federal Government, the abandonment of the Constitution, and the intervention of US forces in conflicts around the globe are all very closely linked. I don't advocate absolute isolationism.  But I don't think we should abandon the constitution just so we can say we're some kind of great empire either. Honestly, what can you say we've gained through constant meddling in affairs that didn't concern us?

Well said. This is the point I'm trying to make. Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: Because like many complicated concepts, idiots like the simple buzz words that they subsitute for logic. Isolationism is great if we are a farming based country, and economy. As soon as we need oil from the Middle East, raw materials from Africa, research from Europe, consumer products from Asia, as well as trying to sell our products around the world, isolationism is impossible. I assure you that I am not an idiot. I fully realize how impractical it would be at this point to return to "isolationism." However, if we had the "will" we could reduce our dependence on oil and raw material imports.  As to selling our products overseas I have a problem with all of these so-called free trade treaties which are leveled against the American worker/businessman,etc. The playing field is not level in this area. So, am I an idiot in your eyes?

There is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field. Some people or countries do things better or cheaper than others.

Trying to make a playing field level by artificial government controls only makes things worse, removing government restrictions on both sides is as much as a government should do.

Want to see our industries become more competative? Look into the fair tax www.faitax.org. What would that do? Every thing manufactured in this country has an average 23% increase to its cost to pay the taxes that are embedded into it, from all the payroll taxes and corporate income taxes along the line.

The fair tax moves the tax to the point of sale only, a 23% sales tax. So therefore the cost of a good made in this country drops 23%, and then gets the 23% added at the register, so it all evens out. However, imports do not get the advantage of the lower production cost in the US, but the sales tax is still added, so they end up being less competative here not because we are being protective of our companies with tariffs, but because we simply removed some of the burden of doing business here for our companies.

Isolationism isn't possible in modern times. We are too dependent on outside sources. Unless we go back to the days of horse drawn buggies, trains that run on coal and steamboats, we can't be isolationists. Therefore we must protect our interests around the world. And yes, that includes oil. Unless we make drastic changes in the way we live and operate, oil is very much a lifeblood for our nation, like it or not.

I embrace some of the things that libertarians believe in. But I am aware that not all of those principles can be put into action in modern society. This is why some libertarian views are viewed as "cooky". They just aren't possible, though the intentions are well meaning, in this day and age.

Garand Shooter, I agree with you, however, I believe many of these so-called free trade treaties give unfair advantages to foreign competition. (For the most part, I believe that these treaties are designed to erode American sovereignty more than anything else.) These treaties do not require the same environmental and regulatory restrictions that are applied to American businesses and that is why I say they're unfair and the playing field unlevel.

Since the Barbary Pirates to today, isolationism has been impossible.  Isolationism caused both World Wars to be much longer, INCREASING the suffering on all sides.

But today, isolationism is suicide.  

Quoted: Isolationism was a valid concept back in washingtons day, when the US had a geographic advatange of being very hard to invade or attack. Now, with travel around the world possible in a day and those willing to attack us capable of doing so from afar it loses validity. The best defense is a good offense, and that means taking the fight to your enemy.

True.. but we would probably have less enemies if we didnt constantly get involved in business that doesnt concern us....

Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist.

1776 called, they want their politics back. The world has been changed in ways that would've been impossible to forsee back then. Globalization is happening, whether you like it or not, and we have to keep up as a world power.

Quoted: Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist. 1776 called, they want their politics back. The world has been changed in ways that would've been impossible to forsee back then. Globalization is happening, whether you like it or not, and we have to keep up as a world power.

1776 called back and said the principles of liberty do not change. I know globalization is happening and agree we have to remain a world power so bite me! I do not think it's unreasonable to say that we do not have to give up our sovereignty and our tax dollars in foreign aid to be a world power.

Do not confuse isolationism with armed neutrality.  Isolationism implies refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the world and closing off all contact.  Armed neutrality means engaging in commerce and diplomacy without tying your destiny to another country's actions.

Quoted: Since the Barbary Pirates to today, isolationism has been impossible.  Isolationism caused both World Wars to be much longer, INCREASING the suffering on all sides. But today, isolationism is suicide.

The US didn't need to be in world war I because it didn't affect us at all.  Our intervention didn't do much to change the outcome either.  Nor did it affect the terms of peace with Germany.  Wilson came up with a great plan, but Europe still thought of us as a bunch of colonials and told us to FO and die.

Oh, and we couldn't have joined in at the start of world war I even if we had wanted to.

Misconceptions about the state of the world and some of the people and nations in it. It'd be a great idea in a perfect Libertarian paradise, but we don't live there.

Isolationists believe that other people and nations will not attack us if we do not attack them. Do you think the Soviet Union, say, would have just left us alone? One of their goals was to aggressively spread Communism worldwide. They weren't planning on stopping just because we weren't threatening them.

There is evil in the world, and it actively seeks out new targets. Pretty much all the things that the Isolationists want us to do make us weaker and more vulnerable in the eyes of those evil men.

Isolationism. Why Do Folks Think Its a Good Idea

It's not only a good idea, it's a GREAT idea.

Mind ones' own business.  A novel concept for do gooders.

It's the if we stick our head in the sand, than nothing can bother us philosophy.

Quoted: It's the if we stick our head in the sand, than nothing can bother us philosophy.

Or the if I don't try to mind your business, I might actually mind my own philosophy.  

Quoted: Quoted: It's the if we stick our head in the sand, than nothing can bother us philosophy. Or the if I don't try to mind your business, I might actually mind my own philosophy.

If you were dealing with saints, than I am sure it would work.   But since we are dealings humans, It doesn't work.  How many times in history were people minding thiner own business and they were invaded because they had something someone else wanted?  Too many times to count, while the US had the buffer of the oceans it was relatively safe, today the oceans are no barrier.

Quoted: So you are against the current Iraq war?

I want to jump on this question as it relates to the thread...

I back any act of agression against our enemies, when it is in the interest of our immediate security. The Iraqi government was the first of several that need to fall. That entire region needs a desperate facelift...2 down, about a half dozen to go.

As far as 'liberating' 'opressed' people...let them fight their own battles.
I am completely against any war that has the interest of nation building at its core.
It makes me sick to think that our country would risk American lives for the purpose of helping people that are too weak to help themselves. Natural selection exists, and humans ought to let it be.

Soldiers are for preserving the government they fight on behalf of....not for establishing new governments, and certainly not for playing police officer in some rat hole 3rd world nation.
Our guys are warriors....not handy men. They shouldnt be assigned arbitrary tasks...they should go in, eliminate the threat, and come back home where they belong....in the country THEY earned the right to call home.


As far as isolationism goes....I have always felt that the lines of communication should be kept with the other world powers....a constant dialogue is important for global progress. That being said....I take a "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" attitude. Trade is fine, for private industry...but I dont believe nations should be subsidizing other nations, especially when the root cause lies in furthering the footprint of a political ideology.

In summary....

Isolationism?...not exactly.
Seperatism?...yeah, to a degree.
Fight enemies?....with extreme prejudice!
Build nations / save the oppressed?....not with my tax dollar thank you.

Quoted: Do not confuse isolationism with armed neutrality.  Isolationism implies refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the world and closing off all contact.  Armed neutrality means engaging in commerce and diplomacy without tying your destiny to another country's actions.

+1. "Isolationism" is a pejorative term coined by empire builders. The US was never "isolationist," and Washington's idea of avoiding entangling alliances is most certainly NOT isolationist. Never was. It means putting America and Americans first. It's a policy of non-intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. The Republic is more important to me than the New World Order so many of you want to establish. Given the choice between Bush's "nation building" and Washington's avoidance of entangling alliances, I'll take Washington thank you very much.

Quoted: +1. "Isolationism" is a pejorative term coined by empire builders. The US was never "isolationist," and Washington's idea of avoiding entangling alliances is most certainly NOT isolationist. Never was. It means putting America and Americans first. It's a policy of non-intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. The Republic is more important to me than the New World Order so many of you want to establish. Given the choice between Bush's "nation building" and Washington's avoidance of entangling alliances, I'll take Washington thank you very much.

A very similar thing can be said by those who use the term "empire builders"

Isolationism is a bad idea because it's better to leave your house to kill the bad guys outside before they get inside.  If the USA is not willing to shape and bend geopolitics to fit our will, then others will step in to shape it to their will.  Those others would destroy us if they could.

Quoted: Quoted: +1. "Isolationism" is a pejorative term coined by empire builders. The US was never "isolationist," and Washington's idea of avoiding entangling alliances is most certainly NOT isolationist. Never was. It means putting America and Americans first. It's a policy of non-intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. The Republic is more important to me than the New World Order so many of you want to establish. Given the choice between Bush's "nation building" and Washington's avoidance of entangling alliances, I'll take Washington thank you very much. A very similar thing can be said by those who use the term "empire builders"

Turning the US into a large empire has ever been the dream of most Federal Government supremacy advocates from Hamilton onward.

Even Hamilton would be sickened by what America has become.

Quoted: Isolationism. Why Do Folks Think Its a Good Idea   It's not only a good idea, it's a GREAT idea. Mind ones' own business.  A novel concept for do gooders.

Could you explain how it would be a good thing for our nation?

It sounds good on the outside but I heve not seen a convincing argument for it. Why would it be good economically? Can we be the greatest nation on Earth as isolationalists? If you could answer those I would appreciate it.

I have seen many responsed that prety much sum up why it wont work IMHO. I woudl like to see some good in depth reasons why folks thing ita good for us. SO far most responses are lacking in details.

I am not saying your response isnt genuine, its just the type I susually hear, I want to see something a little deeper if folks are able.

WW1 and Vietnam come to mind as two examples of interventionism that gained us nothing but alot of body bags.

Ok lets set aside military adventures in this case for a moment. What about economics? Technology? Our political and influence over the world.  

Quoted: Isolationism was a valid concept back in washingtons day, when the US had a geographic advatange of being very hard to invade or attack. Now, with travel around the world possible in a day and those willing to attack us capable of doing so from afar it loses validity. The best defense is a good offense, and that means taking the fight to your enemy.

+1

Quoted: WW1 and Vietnam come to mind as two examples of interventionism that gained us nothing but alot of body bags.

In WW2, Japan attacked us because we had embargos on them.  And we were giving aid to Britain against Germany while claiming to be neutral.  Two cases of not minding our business.  Meddling with one country, tangling alliances with another.  

The happenings with the USSR at the end of WW2 brought about the Cold War and all the fear of them.  The fear of the spread of the communists brought on the Korean war and Vietnam.  

Our government gave help to the Afgans(including what was or going to be theTaliban) to help repel the USSR from spreading, how did that turn out?

Our government helped to put Saddam in power in Iraq, how did that turn out?

We give aid and sell military equipment to Isreal, does that help our ties to the muslim world or make it worse?

Our government helped to stop an overthrow of the government in Iran and stopped what was going to be their revolution.   I wonder how that will play out.  (I will say I don't think we have a right to attack a nation to stop technological growth, but the minute a nuke is even joked about being aimed in our direction its on.)

Even though most of the terrorists that attacked us and Britain are from Saudi Arabia we still suck up to them.  They are a terrorist nation and we should cut ties with them.  You can't claim to be against terrorism while playing buddy-buddy with a terrorist country.  Our having bases and infrastructure there is some of the reasons they claim to have attacked us in the first place.

I think trade is fine, but get bring our boys, our bases, and tax dollars back home and use them to help the people that pay them.  I am not against all war, but when you look at it, how many did we truely need to be in?

Quoted: Isolationism is a bad idea because it's better to leave your house to kill the bad guys outside before they get inside.  If the USA is not willing to shape and bend geopolitics to fit our will, then others will step in to shape it to their will.  Those others would destroy us if they could.

+1 on that. Excellent summary.

Isolationism will not work at all, never has.   As many pointed out, the world is now globalizing and if you don't take proactive steps to keep you and your citizens safe, your gonna have a lot of trouble.

As far as Iraq, they did try to uprise against Saddam a few times but where just massacred because we failed to keep a promise.   Remember, in old Iraq if they THOUGHT you wanted to change the system you were never heard from again.     I fully support our military troops there AND the reason they are there.  I support old George on this one.    One thing about freedom is that, in a way its like a disease.  I've yet to meet a person who willfully wishes to be oppressed in the way people are oppressed in the Middle East in the name of God.

As a whole, nation building is bad.  But like any rule there are exceptions and Iraq is one.  The people want to be free but didn't have the means to.    Hell, on 'Shootout: The Battle for Mosul' they had some Army guys telling the embedded guy that for the most part they are fighting foreign fighters (as can be told by there nice new shoes.' for the most part and the rest are just pissed off Baathist's who lost power.

Quoted: Ok lets set aside military adventures in this case for a moment. What about economics? Technology? Our political and influence over the world.

Quoted: Ok lets set aside military adventures in this case for a moment. What about economics? Technology? Our political and influence over the world.

Nothing wrong with sharing technology within reason.  

Nothing wrong with economic ties, though those can often lead to political alliances as well in order to defend those ties such as the Confederacy hoped for with England.

However, political influence is usually predicated on projection of FORCE.  Whats wrong with that you might ask?  Projecting force requires a large, offensive military.  Furthermore, that military requires all kinds of infrastructure and basing; which necessarily forces that military into wars to gain and defend bases far from it's shores.

The perfect example of this is the annexation of the phillipines in the Spanish American War.  Why did America annex for the first time a land which it had no intention of making a state?  Force projection.  The phillipines gave the US the ability to project itself into Asia.  And what was the result?  A long, bloody supression of the native phillipinos.

Why did the US annex the phillipines and not Cuba as a result of the outcome?  Force projection.  Cuba offered no opportunities to project American power and would have been nothing but a burden.

So what in the world is wrong with projecting American power across the globe, you might ask?  First off, it requires a large, constantly standing army with a mission of offensive action.  An army made up of career soldiers.  Not citizen-soldiers called upon to serve their country in time of need.  Well, whats hat's wrong with that, you might ask?  

It fundamentally shifts the balance of power between the People and the Government giving the government a tool for tyranny if it ever chose to use it as such.  The anti-federalist founders constantly warned against America adopting a large, constantly standing army for that reason.  And you're kidding yourself if you think America is somehow immune to the tryranny of it's government.

Second, American interventionism leads (and has led) to the expansion of unconstitutional powers of the President.  According to the constitution, the Congress has sole authority to make war.  The reason for that is obviously an attempt to prevent the President from being a King, able to take his entire nation to war as one man.  However, now because the US maintains and desires what amounts to the ability to respond anywhere it wants at short notice, the President is allowed to weild what amounts to war-making decisions without consulting congress.  Oh, sure congress has to approve his decision within a set number of days (a result of Presidential war-making in Vietnam) but do you really think they would risk being "soft" on terrorism if they opposed a war against your typical recalcitrant muslim nation?


The short answer is that almost no one, including Libertarians, is advocating absolute "isolationism".   The word has been given to mean that the nation should stick it's head in the sand.  What most Libertarians advocate is a live and let live brand of neutrality.

Quoted: I hold to George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Address in that he said basically, be friends with all nations but have entangling alliances with none. I'm a firm believer we should mind our own business and that includes no foreign aid to any country whatsoever. Most of our national debt is due to foreign aid. Where in the USC will anyone find a provision that says it is the US taxpayer who must support the world? Washington's advice was followed pretty well until WWI. Look what has happened since then. So by this standard I am a proud isolationist.

"...failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations - the NATO community...

I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world...

What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence."
~ Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican Presidential nomination-acceptance speech.



And Goldwater is called the "conservative's conservative".