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.
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
That's all? Anything else? Also, who is that avatar/profile pic of.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
Too bad free societies do not exist. Nations do. Here and now.
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
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?
if they cooperate to synchronize laws, there would be no escape from bad law, and no competition from areas unencumbered by bad law etc.
So basically the libertarian view is realism from a non interventionist platform, with a focus on trade.
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.
What about intervention to stop genocide? What's wrong with cooperation? Liberalism tends to emphacise cooperation and democracy.
What about intervention to stop genocide ?
What's wrong with cooperation ?
Liberalism tends to emphacise cooperation
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.
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
Liberalism in international relations must logically lead to world government.
Not. Cool.
In what steps?
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?
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.
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?
What does the Austrian school of thought, or the free market libertarians out there think of International Relations theories? What do you guys think?
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.
AdrianHealey:Thanks for proving my point.
I didn't.
Ok.
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.