DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Merc Bribes Taliban to Stage Attack on Convoy

**ringsarcle** · 10-06-2010, 06:35 PM

A policy for what is done as a matter of domestic policy and what is done in foreign policy are two very different things in libertarian circles. The applauding of private protections services for law enforcement is a naive supposition that private police forces would operate outside of political entanglement and have something to lose by facing actions non-private police forces really can't be confronted with by an unhappy populace and community crime control groups would simply be interested in straightforward protection of the population.

from the statement you linked:

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect. "

later on

"We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

I don't believe use of mercenaries would be in line with these points.

I actually agree with the latter part in which you quoted- re abandoning Monroe Doctrine.

And I do agree with you to a large extent here, that we should indeed seperate domestic and foreign policies, particularly when security and deployment of force is concerned.

However, you do realize that a significant number of the "convoy", or "assets" which are being protected by merc overseas, are not embassies, or US military bases, intelligence outposts, diplomats, or any kind of governmental interest. They are in fact, private properties owned by Americans and American businesses- such as oil wells, telecommunication towers, shops and factories, shipments of goods, and so on. These are private properties which blur the line between domestic and foreign, precisely because the notion of private property is divorced from national borders- you own something, you own it wherever you are, unless you are in a communist county and they confiscated your property.

So I don't think I was quoting out of context. As far as defence of private properties' concerned- the issue looks the same foreign or domestic- Does the libertarian official doctrine endorse hiring mercenary or security services overseas, in defense of private property, is my question to you.

10-06-2010, 06:35 PM	#31
ringsarcle Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 412 Senior Member	A policy for what is done as a matter of domestic policy and what is done in foreign policy are two very different things in libertarian circles. The applauding of private protections services for law enforcement is a naive supposition that private police forces would operate outside of political entanglement and have something to lose by facing actions non-private police forces really can't be confronted with by an unhappy populace and community crime control groups would simply be interested in straightforward protection of the population. from the statement you linked: "Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect. " later on "We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine." I don't believe use of mercenaries would be in line with these points. I actually agree with the latter part in which you quoted- re abandoning Monroe Doctrine. And I do agree with you to a large extent here, that we should indeed seperate domestic and foreign policies, particularly when security and deployment of force is concerned. However, you do realize that a significant number of the "convoy", or "assets" which are being protected by merc overseas, are not embassies, or US military bases, intelligence outposts, diplomats, or any kind of governmental interest. They are in fact, private properties owned by Americans and American businesses- such as oil wells, telecommunication towers, shops and factories, shipments of goods, and so on. These are private properties which blur the line between domestic and foreign, precisely because the notion of private property is divorced from national borders- you own something, you own it wherever you are, unless you are in a communist county and they confiscated your property. So I don't think I was quoting out of context. As far as defence of private properties' concerned- the issue looks the same foreign or domestic- Does the libertarian official doctrine endorse hiring mercenary or security services overseas, in defense of private property, is my question to you.
	Quote