No Coercion

A blog exploring the idea of ending coercion and living in a free society.

Entries Comments



Isolationist or noninterventionist?

17 December, 2009 (17:37) | Trade, Military, Foreign policy, Libertarianism, Government | By: Darren

I can kind of understand when I run across some goofball on the interwebs who accuses libertarians of being isolationist due to our opposition to meddling in other countries’ affairs, but it’s at least a little surprising and disheartening to see the Pew Research Center and someone whose title is “AP Diplomatic Writer” using the same bad definition: Poll: Isolationism Soars Among Americans

What he clearly meant by “isolationism” was “noninterventionism.” An isolationist is someone who literally wants to see his country isolated from the global community–he wants a ceasing or reduction of not only official intervention but also things such as trade and travel. A noninterventionist is someone who simply opposes his national government intervening in the affairs of other countries. Libertarians are noninterventionist because we oppose intervention but are NOT isolationist since we advocate maximum freedom of movement and trade. I would expect that very few people are truly isolationist except for maybe a handful of hardcore authoritarian populists.

Pew appears to have based its claim of increasing isolationism on the respondents’ answer to the statements, “The U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,”and, “We should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems and building up our strength and prosperity here at home.” At the same time, the poll shows a marked increase in support for free trade agreements, which are a pretty good proxy for gauging support for actual free trade since so many people perceive these agreements as free trade.

So what Pew’s own poll shows is a strong trend not toward isolationism but toward the libertarian principle of nonintervention.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Comments

Comment from Morey
Time: December 19, 2009, 1:02 pm

Your definition of isolationism is logical and certainly in line with Wikipedia’s, but I’m not sure that both aspects of the meaning are broadly accepted. IIRC, Goldwater (and others prior to his time) embraced the term in a purely militaristic sense. The latter meaning persists even among some who understand the distinction.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 24, 2009, 2:20 pm

Yeah, and it sort of makes sense when used in a purely military sense, but usually there are no such qualifiers given when someone is using the word. When used without qualifiers, “noninterventionist” seems much more in line with libertarian philosophy.

Write a comment