@AP4Liberty@Judgenap Republicans abandoned principles long ago, if they ever had them. It’s been a party of Big Government and Big Spending (not to mentions wars on everything), for my entire life; they just want THEIR guys in charge and not the OTHER guys. They’re all untrustworthy to be in control
@Hero9269Bryan@AP4Liberty We don’t claim him. He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing when he ran as a libertarian, and thank goodness he’s left the party. Now, if only he could stop lying about who he is by still using any terms implying liberty when he’s clearly championing statist and nationalist ideas.
Austin, with all due respect, I think the Libertarian Party dodged a massive bullet when you didn’t win the nomination.
What you’re describing isn’t a thoughtful evolution of libertarian principles, it’s ideological drift toward whatever feels politically comfortable at the moment. Libertarianism, at its core, isn’t about vibes or national sentiment. It’s about the Non-Aggression Principle applied consistently, including in foreign policy. That’s where non-interventionism comes from.
Ron Paul didn’t oppose endless wars because he “hated America.” He opposed them because he loved the Constitution, understood blowback, and recognized that empire abroad always erodes liberty at home.
You say libertarians internationally don’t have what you call “Israel Derangement Syndrome,” but what many of us actually have is a consistent opposition to foreign entanglements, foreign aid, and military intervention, regardless of which country is involved. That’s not derangement, that’s principle.
Non-interventionism works because it avoids creating enemies faster than we can eliminate them. It prevents the massive debt and inflation that come from policing the world. It reduces the incentive for terrorism and retaliation. It keeps us aligned with a defensive, not imperial, military posture.
History is very clear on this. Empires overextend, accumulate debt, provoke resentment, and eventually collapse. From Rome to Britain, the pattern doesn’t change. The United States is not exempt from that reality.
And on the idea that the rest of the world “loves” us, that’s just not accurate. People may admire American culture, innovation, and freedom in theory, but they deeply resent U.S. foreign policy. You can find polling from Pew Research and others showing widespread unfavorable views of the U.S. in the Middle East, mixed to negative sentiment across Europe depending on the issue, and skepticism in parts of Asia. That’s not because they hate freedom, it’s because they’ve experienced or witnessed intervention, sanctions, bombings, or regime change efforts. The same pattern holds in Africa and Latin America where people may like Americans but distrust U.S. foreign policy due to a long history of military involvement, coups, and economic pressure.
That’s called blowback, and Ron Paul was warning about it decades ago.
If anything, what’s naive is believing that endless intervention makes us safer or more loved. It doesn’t. It creates enemies, drains our resources, and expands government power at home.
Loving America doesn’t mean supporting its government’s actions uncritically. In fact, the most pro-American position is defending the principles that made this country exceptional in the first place limited government, peace, and liberty.
That’s the difference.