Should We Be Good Libertarians And Not Attack ISIS?

[Reub]

How does the libertarian creed of staying at home and not creating new enemies overseas jive with the rise of the latest group of Jihadist murderous barbarians, ISIS? I believe that it doesn't stand up very well!

[murphy_p_t]

dont let your ideology become a diety.

[Pointedstick]

interesting question.. the rise of " the latest group of Jihadist murderous barbarians" didn't come about because of any libertarian policies of course..
it is the result of a "A big ball of mud" that has been forming since colonial times (or earlier), added to most recently by neocon war hawks and the indecisive, apathetic and potentially pro-Islamic policies of the current administration. Would taking a hands off approach be effective or moral at this point? given our involvement in its creation and having already made commitments to the people being slaughtered or who are at risk of being slaughtered? i am not sure i have an answer to those questions...

Nothing about libertarian foreign policy is against coming to the aid of those who request it.

what does it say about whose aid we come to? part of the rise of ISIS was due to our coming to the aid of fundamentalists Muslim groups that wanted aid overthrowing the dictators suppressing them (and freedom and human rights at the same time) during the "Arab spring"?

[Reub]

So before we go after a heinous barbaric threat we need to be asked? If we don't like the way that we're asked is it allowed that we force changes on their government including removing their prime minister before we come to their rescue? What about the act of beheading an American in their lands? Is that his or our fault too? Is every heinous act anywhere simply because of our meddling and therefore more meddling can never help? What if no one asks for our help because they are too afraid or too dead?

[Ad Orientem]

Since ISIS exists solely because the witless knave George Bush overthrew the only entity holding together the geo-political fantasy we call Iraq, I'd say the question is pretty brassy. You create one of the greatest nightmares in post war history and then blame libertarians for not fixing it. Jews have a word for that sort of thing... Chutzpah.

[Reub]

Islamic jihadists aka terrorist murderers have been around a lot longer than George Bush........about 1300 years longer.

[Ad Orientem]

Islamic jihadists aka terrorist murderers have been around a lot longer than George Bush........about 1300 years longer.

Your question addressed ISIS. I responded to it. If you want to advocate for a world war with the object of exterminating a billion or so people on the basis of the barbarous criminality of a group constituting less than a fraction of a fraction of 1% of their coreligionists, that's on you.

[Pointedstick]

It seems, Reub, that you may have finally found something you agree with President Obama on!

[Reub]

What's that? The use of a fairway wood Instead of an iron? Obama's heart is not into fighting these monsters. He may have to pretend to care for a while...at least until the upcoming elections are over.

[Libertarian666]

Since ISIS exists solely because the witless knave George Bush overthrew the only entity holding together the geo-political fantasy we call Iraq, I'd say the question is pretty brassy. You create one of the greatest nightmares in post war history and then blame libertarians for not fixing it. Jews have a word for that sort of thing... Chutzpah.

I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for post of the year.

It gets my vote.

[dualstow]

A British rapper is the main suspect in Mr Foley's beheading? Wow. Addicted to crack and alcohol, and his father is also facing terrorism charges. What a life.

[TripleB]

If we (as a hypothetical libertarian society) decide to intervene with ISIS, we need to look not only at what is seen, but also what is not seen.

It's not "free" to go to war with ISIS. It costs money. It costs time. It costs lives. A little girl's daddy will be killed. Probably several. Many more little girls will go one or more years without seeing their daddy. All of us will spend time away from our family working extra hours, to pay the taxes that pay for the war.

What if the question were phrased such as:

Do you want to intervene with ISIS or do you want your next door neighbor's 7 year old girl to grow up with a father who otherwise would have gone to war and died? Do you want to intervene with ISIS or do you want an extra 2 weeks vacation because your annual taxes were reduced by 2 weeks worth of salary so you can spend 2 more weeks with your family?

Suppose you argue that you would be willing to work an extra 2 weeks of work this year to help intervene with ISIS because ISIS is so horrible and you're willing to make that sacrifice. Are you willing to force every other American to work 2 extra weeks this year, at gunpoint, demand them to work those 2 weeks or you will shoot them in the head in front of their children if they "resist arrest" after refusing to pay the taxes that would pay for the war?

Now the more important question - where does it end? ISIS is bad so working an extra 2 weeks this year and making every other American work 2 extra weeks this year is worth it. What about children dying of AIDS in Africa? Certainly we can all chip in and work just one extra day each year to pay a little more taxes and pay for their HIV medication. How about children dying of Malaria in India? What's one more day of work for every American to chip in and pay taxes to pay for anti-malarial meds?

Will we ever run out of external causes so just and important that we wouldn't be willing to work just a little bit harder to pay more taxes to collectively work towards solving those problems? Who gets to decide where that dividing line is between forcing everyone at gunpoint to work more to pay taxes to support an external cause and not raising more taxes to support a cause?

Libertarians are about freedom. If you support an external cause, then you're free to donate money to an organization that will champion against it. Think HIV children in Africa is a noble cause and you're willing to work extra to pay for it? Then do it, and donate to a charity. Liberals are about one person or a small group of people arbitrarily deciding what they think is right and forcing everyone else to agree at gunpoint.

[I Shrugged]

North Korea is worse than ISIS, except they hide their atrocities.  Why aren't we going after them?

There are bad guys all over the globe.  The only reason we are bombing ISIS is out of shame:
A) we destroyed Iraq for no reason, and
B) we will be humiliated if ISIS succeeds. 

I was about to write, another intervention blows up in our face.  But Iraq was not an intervention, it was an out and out war crime.  I had voted GOP my whole life, until 2004 when I realized the imbecile GWB and his handlers lied to us, and we had invaded a country just because.  I said at the time that this day would come, where Iraq would be taken over by people way more hostile to us than Sadaam ever was. 

I need to go lay down. 

[Pointedstick]

It's amazing how much damage Bush II did to the Republican party. Probably permanently damaged millennials' perception of the GOP too by being such a publicly foolish and destructive ass just as we were beginning to come of age politically.

[Jan Van]

... The only reason we are bombing ISIS is out of shame...

I thought it was because they were threatening Erbil, so oil....