Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, said: What about foreign dictators? Leave them alone. That’s a matter for the people of those countries to deal with. Some will choose revolution, as in Tunisia. Others will choose to wait them out, as the Eastern European countries did during the Cold War. That’s their call, not the call of the U.S. government. What about human rights in foreign countries? The U.S. government should lead the world by example, not impose its will on others, especially through force of arms. That means the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the end of torture, abuse, indefinite detention, kangaroo tribunals, denial of due process, assassination, executions, kidnapping, the war on terrorism, and the war on drugs. At the same time, the U.S. government should lift all restrictions on the American people to travel and trade with people abroad. A good place to start would be the complete lifting of the cruel and inhumane embargo on the Cuban people, which also constitutes a grave assault on the economic liberty of the American people. Foreigners love Americans. They hate U.S. government officials. Rein in the government and free up the American people. What better way to spread diplomacy and ideas on democracy and liberty than that? Is that all that can be done to help people suffering under dictatorship? No. Our American ancestors came up with another way: Open immigration. They let the word go forth to the people of the world: If you are suffering tyranny, oppression, or starvation, our government will not come to save you, especially with bombs, troops, or money. But if you have the desire and ability to escape your plight, know that there will always be at least one nation that will not repatriate you after you arrive: The United States of America. Isn’t that a much better and more moral way to help people than through death and destruction?
Hornberger is a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist, but would his minarchist foreign policy exist in an anarcho-capitalist society? “There is no government, so there is no foreign policy.” Well, maybe. What if people in an anarcho-capitalist society wanted to pay their private security agencies to topple very oppressive governments? Interventionist, but voluntary-funded. Can you imagine getting mail saying “Please support the oppressed people over there by donating so we can send them firearms”?
Besides, the possibility of this occurring, is it desirable? Voluntarily-funded, well-intentioned intervention can have unintended consequences. Governments have been overthrown, sometimes replaced by even crueler ones. No point in abolishing one form of tyranny in a country to be replaced by a possibly worse one. Maybe there could be a scale of readiness for freedom the private security agencies use. When people in a country are at a certain level, then support for government abolishment should be considered worthwhile. Toppling a government does not have to be just sending people weapons. Send books, pamphlets, all kinds of different products.
Historian Thaddeus Russell argued in A Renegade History of the United States in the chapter How Juvenile Delinquents Won The Cold War that those in the Soviet Union wanted to dance, rock and roll, and party, all which were against the wishes of the communist leaders.
The profit-and-loss system hopefully will reward wise foreign policy actions by private security agencies, but that may not happen. People regularly donate money to Africa, but what Africa needs, besides the regular immediate relief, is a free economy, not periodic handouts. People can feel good about their donations to Africa regardless of how effective it is. The same could occur with consumers supporting inneffective foreign policy actions of private security agencies.
What do you all think of an anarcho-capitalist foreign policy?
I agree, it is almost similar to the psychological affect of a placebo drug. A more apprioriate means of helping destitute nations is the 'teach a man to fish' proverb (meaning free markets of course).
Foreign policy may simply be free trade and setting an example of a prosperous nation. Peacefully lead by example. Just my 2 cents.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Okay. What if a foreign government attacks a member of an Ancap/Minarchist area? For example, nationalizing businesses.
Gero:What if people in an anarcho-capitalist society wanted to pay their private security agencies to topple very oppressive governments? Interventionist, but voluntary-funded. Can you imagine getting mail saying “Please support the oppressed people over there by donating so we can send them firearms”?
I think what we would see is foreign nationals, immigrants, refugees and their children planning rescue operations to save their loved ones who are still trapped in their fatherland. As cold as this may seem, I can not imagine anybody else caring.
An AnCap nation would be much more "aggressive" than most AnCaps think. All businesses have a desire to expand - why wouldn't PDAs want to expand into certain territorial areas where [government] monopolies operate? This isn't an "aggressive" "foreign policy," this is standard business practice introducing competition where it didn't exist before.
Political Atheists Blog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feoOSbgG4p4
@8:00 There are some good ideas in regard to this
That's interesting. Hypothetically, a land owner in a statist nation wishes to protest and refuse Government tax requirements. The land owner hires a security firm to provide full service risk management of his property to prevent statist goons from siezing it.
Sure the firm can deny service if they waiger the risk is too high and a potential hundred-to-one scenerio. Although the state would have to be in a complete state of propaganda to hide a 'Ruby Ridge' scenario of this scale. Statist funds run thin on political dissent, digging themselves into a deeper hole, et cetera.