North Korea: The Craziness of Libertarian Opinion
I am in support of President Trump’s strong self defense policy statements.
I’m never surprised by the frequent inanity I hear from liberals, it is to be expected considering their decades of passive compliance to whatever their political gurus dictate combined with their inability to reason and predisposition to emotionalism. However to see many libertarians (who like to identify their mindset with rationality, logic and supposed principle) fall into the very same mindless regurgitation of the nonsense their political gurus espouse is sad. Sadly, lack of critical thinking is prevalent among libertarians, as with many other Americans, regardless of their political ideology.
The North Korea situation is a prime example where many libertarians are behaving as foolishly and wrongly in their vitriolic attacks on President Trump as their Democratic counterparts.
Sounding no different than senseless liberals on this crisis, I’ve seen sentiments expressed as these:
seeks intercontinental ballistic missiles merely to protect themselves from a superpower such as the U.S.
is a nation state, no different than any other, who should be talked and reasoned with
has every right to possess any weapons of their choice
should be ignored by the U.S., regardless of threats such as those against Guam, and the situation left to South Korea and North Korea
is a product of the decades of aggression, interventionism, and regime change the U.S. has wrought upon the world
All above points are false, save for the last one, though it nevertheless has no bearing whatsoever on the current danger posed by North Korea. How this crisis historically developed is irrelevant to the immediate threat; causation is a matter of study and reference, it in no way implies a guilt-ridden acceptance of being punished by someone such as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. If the U.S. had adopted a hands off foreign policy decades ago, some libertarians say, we would not have this situation. Correct or incorrect, such comments are meaningless, spurious pseudo-intellectual nonsense when offered as a reason to do nothing now. Talking of the past solves nothing. You cannot behave as if everyone will respect non use of violence merely because you believe in it. Naivety gets you killed (sort of like the gun grabbers who believe firearms are the problem rather than identifying people choosing to commit evil as the problem). Likewise, weapons, conventional or unconventional, are not the problem, persons choosing to commit evil with them are, and must be stopped.
The North Korean invasion, which sadly developed into the bloody Korean War, is indicative of NK’s goal still. Although the U.S. need not have taken this as a cause then (and did so in fear of the spread of communism), it did intervene as it often has in conflicts unrelated to the U.S. Nevertheless, the situation as it is in this moment does pose a threat to American lives.There can be no tolerance for 4 such missiles to be sent surrounding Guam, it is a message to the U.S. that NK is holding Guam hostage, and thus anything NK does in reference to weapon development or aggression had better be ignored lest Guam be destroyed. I do not believe in letting a hostage be taken. Nor do I view a man such as Kim Jong Un with equal legitimacy and trust to permit his acquisition of more advanced weaponry which has capability of harming Americans on our soil (mainland or territorial).
Unlike many using the non-aggression principle of libertarianism to justify pacifism and thus speak as if they are North Korean sympathizers or apologists, I have always interpreted non-aggression to require preemptive force in certain situations, as self defense is moral and ethical. Avoidance of threats, ignoring and behaving as if because you seek to harm no other then no other will seek to harm you, is utter nonsense. Dangerous nonsense.
If you or say your child had to walk a certain route home, and in front of your path there appeared a savage snarling animal, obviously threatening to attack, would you simply say this animal had a background of abuse from human beings, it merely seeks to defend itself because it is scared, and take no action until and if it bit and mauled, possibly to death, your child before you took up arms against it. Would a preemptive use of force leave you guilt-ridden since you’d prefer to wait until your child is dead or seriously harmed before using force against the animal? If a deranged person verbally threatened you, followed by their trespass on your property, would you let it go?
The scenario differs not from the world of human beings when one, such as Kim Jong Un, blatantly and pridefully threatens to murder Americans. To ignore such an evil threat (which is what has brought us to this unfortunate state),to acquiesce to such points above, is what is unethical and immoral, as it condones and allows murders to occur when they could be prevented.
Don’t fall for all the popular sentiments that the North Korean leader seeks only to defend himself from U.S. aggression. View their own video which explicitly displays their threatening intention:
“Kim Jong Un enjoys propaganda video depicting bombing of US, video.foxnews.com. Apr. 19, 2017 – 0:48 – Raw video: North Korea state television airs footage from musical marking birthday of Kim Il Sung which ended with mock-up video of missiles reigning down on U.S.” (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5403242201001/?#sp=show-clips )
The above is not a concerned leader seeking to defend his nation, it is the show of a prideful, spiritually insane man who glorifies what military might he has with visions of murdering millions. Make no mistake about it, the man is a murderer expressing desire to murder millions more than the thousands he already has. (Note: The Wikipedia page on human rights in North Korea cites many good resources at its end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea ). I also recommend you searching for and reading the many accounts from defectors of the atrocities committed.
Appeasement (whatever form it may take) to such evil in an effort to avoid war is an act of weakness, with as history shows, hell to pay. You do not simply sit down and talk once someone has vowed to murder you.
Diplomacy sought is good, to the degree international powers may be able to dissuade North Korea from the path it’s now on, good. However, to rely on it, and assume it will work, and then lay low in rhetoric or show of force would be a serious mistake.
Further, Guam is inhabited by Americans. It is a U.S. territory, with U.S. citizenship by birth. Protecting them, as well as the mainland, from the aggressive acts of North Korea is essential.
Beyond the threats themselves, the firing of the missiles themselves is an act of aggression. With no flight patterns announced as international agreements require, at any given time a miscalculation could result in thousands dead, and certainly the occupants of any air (including passenger planes), sea, or space craft in the paths would be killed if struck. Though a small chance of this happening, it still exists, and is prevented by nations who always abide by announcing such missile testing.
I ask libertarians, many of whom I met across this country and I know to be intelligent and loving, to re-examine their knee-jerk anti-Trump reactions which may be fueled by rhetoric from some of those they place on pedestals. You have a mind, use it to do your own interpretation of nonaggression as a principle. Mere regurgitation of what some libertarian “celebrity” expresses is not characteristic of an individual. Think for yourself. Your individuality shines when you stand and express your thoughts, not merely repeat something by someone who has a herd following. Thus, when it comes to President Trump, examine each issue singularly, you may disagree from a libertarian perspective on certain actions, and agree from a libertarian perspective on others. To mock and condemn all actions, without thought, is unbecoming your stated values and beliefs.
In this instance, President Trump’s strong stance against North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is the stance we need. Whatever is required to prevent a known murderer who is actively threatening to murder Americans is justified. I applaud and am grateful for President Trump’s courage to step away from the long history of politically correct weakness his predecessors exhibited in the office of presidency. For the safety of Americans, President Trump is doing everything correctly. His stance is a clear example of self defense. A clear example of love for the American people.