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:
Free Trade.
Mind your own (your nation’s) business. (The Non-agression Axiom)
Do not look for conflict. Defend yourself if attacked.
That’s all? Anything else? Also, who is that avatar/profile pic of.
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:
If we are talking about international political economics then I would consider libertarians to be radical anti-imperialists.
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.
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
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.
realism
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.
What about intervention to stop genocide? What’s wrong with cooperation? Liberalism tends to emphacise cooperation and democracy.
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) ?
Not sure what do you have in mind when you say ‘cooperation’ - Are you talking about ‘cooperation’ between states ? Criminal partnerships, that is ?
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’ ?
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?