Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

International Relations Theory

rated by 0 users
This post has 26 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990
Libertyandlife Posted: Sat, Sep 12 2009 12:40 PM

What does the Austrian school of thought, or the free market libertarians out there think of International Relations theories? What do you guys think? The two more popular theories are:

Liberalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_relations_theory

and Realism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism

 

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 80
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 53
Points 805

1. Free Trade.

2. Mind your own (your nation's) business. (The Non-agression Axiom)

3. Do not look for conflict. Defend yourself if attacked. 

"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

That's all? Anything else? Also, who is that avatar/profile pic of.

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 188
Points 3,820
socialdtk replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:14 PM

Libertyandlife:
That's all? Anything else?

That's it although #1 and #3 are really just the application of #2.  So I'd answer your question with 3 letters: NAP (The Non-Agression Principle).  Murray Rothbard defines NAP in two sentences:

Murray N. Rothbard:
The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.  "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

If we are talking about international political economics then I would consider libertarians to be radical anti-imperialists.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 11:31 PM
The term inter 'national' relations only makes some sense if you believe that such things as nations exist. But of course they don't. A free society is not a nation and has no government so the whole subject of 'international relations' is moot.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Juan:
The term inter 'national' relations only makes some sense if you believe that such things as nations exist. But of course they don't. A free society is not a nation and has no government so the whole subject of 'international relations' is moot.

But while there exists an institution of coercion, it is good to have a policy to limit it to the point of nonexistence.

 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 53
Points 805

Libertyandlife:

That's all? Anything else? Also, who is that avatar/profile pic of.

What else should there be? Peace and liberty are simple. 

 

RE: the avatar:

Diego de Covarubias y Leyva, a Spanish Scholastic from the School of Salamanca, a precursor of the Austrian School. The painting is by El Greco. 

"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 5:44 AM

Juan:
The term inter 'national' relations only makes some sense if you believe that such things as nations exist. But of course they don't. A free society is not a nation and has no government so the whole subject of 'international relations' is moot.

Too bad free societies do not exist. Nations do. Here and now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

too bad that nations are a false karass

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

Besides preemptive war, what would be another reason why cooperation would be a bad thing? Honestly, I have to write a college paper on the two theories, and give my own opinion. How would we convince other people that non intervention would be more beneficial to all of us?

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

if they cooperate to synchronize laws, there would be no escape from bad law, and no competition from areas unencumbered by bad law etc.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

So basically the libertarian view is realism from a non interventionist platform, with a focus on trade.

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 5:27 PM
realism
is a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security, rather than ideals, social reconstructions, or ethics. This term is often synonymous with power politics.
But libertarianism has nothing to do with power politics, national interests and pragmatism. As to 'national security', some libertarians may (wrongly) believe in it, but historically libertarianism attempted to replace war with trade and thus render militarism (and national security) irrelevant.

I'm not sure what realism + non-intervention would be. Sounds like pro-war pacifism ?

As to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_relations_theory

I couldn't make head or tail of it.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

What about intervention to stop genocide? What's wrong with cooperation? Liberalism tends to emphacise cooperation and democracy.

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 7:36 PM
What about intervention to stop genocide ?
Not sure what you are talking about. Governments are the ones committing genocide. Who's going to intervene to stop them ? You mean the 'good' government (us) will stop the 'bad' government (they) ?
What's wrong with cooperation ?
Not sure what do you have in mind when you say 'cooperation' - Are you talking about 'cooperation' between states ? Criminal partnerships, that is ?
Liberalism tends to emphacise cooperation
Not sure what you mean by liberalism. Are you talking about classical liberalism/libertarianism ? Or are you talking about the totalitarian social democracies that people today mistakenly call 'liberal' ?

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Libertyandlife:
So basically the libertarian view is realism from a non interventionist platform, with a focus on trade.

No realism is an ideology that accepts the balances of power in the world and works to retain that status quo.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

Yes, if another government can stop genocide, should it?

Yes between states.

For the last one, read the first post. I'm talking about liberalism considering international relations theory.

I don't know how accurate wikipedia, but I was just looking at different libertarian thought. Someone mentioned the non agression principle, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-0 is against "consequential libertarianism" which is the libertarianism of Mises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Sun, Sep 13 2009 9:26 PM

Liberalism in international relations must logically lead to world government.

Not. Cool.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,189
Points 22,990

In what steps? 

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 53
Points 805

Libertyandlife:

Yes, if another government can stop genocide, should it?

 

 

1. How would a government decide which genocides to stop? Consider Mao's killing of 80,000,000, or Stalin's killing of 10,000,000 before WWII. Should the US invaded China or the USSR to stop them? 

2. Who in the government makes the value judgement to decide on the parameters and definitons for the "should?" 

3. Is genocide a term, like terrorism, that is merely in the eyes of the beholder? E.g. George Washington was seen as an insurgent in the eyes of the British Crown, Lenin seen as a liberator to those who were not slaughtered, etc. 

4. Would more governement killing (the intervention to stop genocide) stop other government killing (the genocide)? 

5. Is the US Government the best government to intervene in stopping genocide? What might the perspective of an American Indian be? 

 

"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 850
Points 13,615

I find it funny that the topicstarters asks a question on schools of thought that study International Relations between states (in the hic and nunc) (i.e. descriptive) and that people answer with the normative libertarian thoughts.

 

Anyway; I don't have a clear view on either schools so I don't know.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

AdrianHealey:
I find it funny that the topicstarters asks a question on schools of thought that study International Relations between states (in the hic and nunc) (i.e. descriptive) and that people answer with the normative libertarian thoughts.

Libertyandlife:

What does the Austrian school of thought, or the free market libertarians out there think of International Relations theories? What do you guys think?

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 850
Points 13,615

Thanks for proving my point.

He's not asking 'what do you think about what IR ought to be' but what free market libertarians/austrian school thinks of the theories that are used to analyse IR. Hence; him giving a wiki link to the realist and liberal school of IR.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

AdrianHealey:
Thanks for proving my point.

I didn't.

 

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 850
Points 13,615

Ok.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Wed, Sep 30 2009 8:30 AM

Libertyandlife:

In what steps? 

Well they are for a final arbiter, the international system is anarchic, oh noes!

They're for peace too. World government, no more wars! "Peace"!

What steps?

First world central bank. Then world government. - If you want Hoppe's awesome lecture on this, search or I can go digging. Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (27 items) | RSS