Contemplating Non-Aggression

One of the things that draw me into the Libertarian Party is the principle of Non-Aggression.  I know that the citizens of this great country are not imperialistic, I know that as a whole, we do not want to rule the world.  We want peace, we want safety, and we would prefer that all people would be as free as us.  The principle of non-aggression doesn’t mean that we should lay down all arms and confront those who would invade our country with flowers and song, rather the opposite. We, as a nation of free people, have the right to defend ourselves and our country.  Instead, the Non-Aggression Principle(NAP)  addresses the question of war beyond our borders.

How do you justify going to war with a foreign nation?  When they attack first, that is the simplest method, national defense falls well within the NAP.  Invasion, bombing raids, attacks on ships out to sea, assassinations, firing upon an aircraft of a foreign nation, all acts of aggression that may be met with reactive force. This aspect is a defense of property owned by a nation or by citizens or corporations of a nation and thereby constitute as ‘interests’ of a nation. However, if an individual or corporation holds property outside the US, that property should be defended by the other nation, or by a security force hired by the individual or corporation.  Defense is viable, whereas other forms of aggression are harder to excuse.

Invasion for resources? Did you forget how a market works?  Commerce, you want a resource, buy it, trade for it, don’t attack for it.  If I am hungry and my fridge is empty, I am not going to shoot up a grocery store in order to stock up on food. The same for nations, I understand that some resources are harder to come by than others, but trade and diplomacy should be the foremost methods to obtaining the desired products. Your country may not have anything that they want for their resource. That is fine, there are other countries out there with the same resource that may want something you can trade.  In this era of a global economy, there is plenty of competition for resources and if one refuses you, you can always find another who will deal.

Territory? We already have plenty and we, as a nation, decided long ago that 50 states was enough.  There is no longer any unclaimed lands in the world and many have started claiming lands beyond.  We maintain a few island territories, but they govern themselves for the most part.  I say again, America is not an imperialist nation.  That is not to say that there haven’t been attempts by those lobbying our government officials to spread “democracy” or to instill a “regime change” in foreign countries in attempts to replace those governments with ones that will be more favoring to their businesses and interests.  When this happens, it is not something to ignore, it represents a corruption of our government and a gross violation of the NAP.  We cannot allow corporations and businesses to use our military, which was created for our defense, to accomplish their own ends.

Because they have weapons or are developing weapons….like WMDs or Nukes?  We have those, did we in the past or do we now have UN weapons inspectors visit our nation to make sure we aren’t violating some overreaching regulation imposed by this global advisory board?  Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, we gave them to them years before, so that they could be our counter to Iran.  They were not using them, nor threatening to use them, but they had them. Not only that but, “Iraq was run by a dictator, so we had to spread democracy and freedom”, right?  But no WMDs were found and the tribes of the Middle East have their own way of establishing a government.  Honestly, would you accept a foreign government invading the US, removing our government and then telling us what kind of government we need to set up and how to run it?

They wouldn’t have a chance, since the sheer volume of patriotic, gun-toting citizen would be marching to remove them from our soil.  Can we expect any less from foreign nationals defending their own homes?  Look at WWII, if you read on the accounts of our battles in the Pacific, as we island hopped toward Japan, the Japanese soldiers seemed to fight harder, take more risks.  This is because as we drove them back, they shifted to the defensive, they were defending their homeland.  

Then there is Iran, there have been claims that they are developing nuclear weapons, but both the CIA and the Israeli Intelligence have issued reports that the uranium enrichment in Iran only gets up to 20%, which is idea for use in nuclear reactors, for electrical power generation.  During the Obama Administration, sanctions were eased through an agreement on the condition that Iran ended their nuclear weapons program.  Lately, there is a big fuss about Iran’s ballistic missile testing.  Why? Don’t other countries test new and developing weapons?  These missiles aren’t designed for nuclear warheads, that would be a violation of their agreement.  Not only that, but Iran has reduced their stockpile of uranium to a ⅓ of its predeal size.  So, what is the big fuss?

They have the gall to test a new weapon and show they can defend themselves when the time come? Good for them.  I am not afraid because with the easing of the sanctions, a lot of American media has entered the country and Iranians, in general, like Americans.  It is not illegal for sovereign nations to research and produce new technologies.  
All these examples of foreign intervention violate the NAP.  For there is no reason to initiate violence on this scale other than to bully or from greed.  However, the US has many alliances across the globe and over the years many countries have come to count of the US to act as a ‘policeman’ of sorts.  Do we shed these alliances, abandon the defense of other countries?  The NAP says yes, we spend more on our military than the next few countries combined.  How many other countries have so many bases in foreign nations across the world?  To an extent, we have become a security firm for other countries.  They no longer budget for their military as in years past, but we remain and we grow.  

What would happen if one day, we have a president that recalled all the troops?  Just called them all home, put notice to the countries we have bases in, packed up, and shipped all our people home.  If they were more considerate, they may give them enough advance notice that the countries can plan and adjust their military accordingly for their own defense. To bring ours home though, to focus our military only on defense, would have positive effects.  No longer being viewed as a bully in global affairs, able to cut our military spending and regain some balance to our budget, peace of mind knowing our loved ones in uniform were on American soil, or at least in American territory.   Protecting us and our freedom, rather than fighting on foreign soil for the profit of the few.  Many people believe that the future of this world is globalism, but they miss a key element in that pursuit.  You cannot have global unity if you do not respect other countries’ right to defend themselves.  You can not have mutual respect if you are constantly sending drones or armies into foreign countries in pursuit of the goals of a few.

 

Written By: Andrew Wilson

Read more of his work at Vic.Report

 
Andrew Wilsonfront, opinion