Given that one of the tenets of Libertarianism is the NAP and thus military should only be used for defense, are military guards for diplomatic posts an acceptable use? Personally I think they would be allowed since their primary mission is protection of the staff and not one of aggression but I figured I'd see what y'all think.
I don't particularly identify with either of those labels. You might call me an anarchist or libertarian "without adjectives", sort of a pseudo-intellectual doomsday raider. It seems that capitalism works on a global scale so long as the community is globalized. Indeed, conflict is a part of human nature, and ultimately every large civilization to date has imploded after reaching a certain peak. No such thing as free lunch or world peace, y'know? Civilizations rise and fall, stocks climb and crash, populations boom and bust.
Socioeconomic politicking and international diplomacy aren't so much "unacceptable" as they are irrelevant. Global trade is the ebb of the tide, while some miscellaneous calamity will be our downfall. At least temporarily, until we bounce back. Until we just go extinct. This is no conspiracy theory, nor apocalyptic prophecy, just a noticeable pattern of events throughout history. Law and anarchy are two sides of the same psychosocial coin. Isolationist communities are somewhat inevitable, only give it time.
Withdrawing voluntarily from international relationships at a reasonable pace might just ease the shock of whatever bitch-slaps our species next.
I don't particularly identify with either of those labels. You might call me an anarchist or libertarian "without adjectives", sort of a pseudo-intellectual doomsday raider. It seems that capitalism works on a global scale so long as the community is globalized. Indeed, conflict is a part of human nature, and ultimately every large civilization to date has imploded after reaching a certain peak. No such thing as free lunch or world peace, y'know? Civilizations rise and fall, stocks climb and crash, populations boom and bust.
Socioeconomic politicking and international diplomacy aren't so much "unacceptable" as they are irrelevant. Global trade is the ebb of the tide, while some miscellaneous calamity will be our downfall. At least temporarily, until we bounce back. Until we just go extinct. This is no conspiracy theory, nor apocalyptic prophecy, just a noticeable pattern of events throughout history. Law and anarchy are two sides of the same psychosocial coin. Isolationist communities are somewhat inevitable, only give it time.
Withdrawing voluntarily from international relationships at a reasonable pace might just ease the shock of whatever bitch-slaps our species next.
Libertarian doesn't always equal anarchist. I was once a full blown anarchist, the kind that believed in every person for themselves/no rules, but as I've grown older I tend to identify with either AnCaps or Minarchists (depends on the day sometimes the week). I think humans need some sort of economic system in place and the capitalism is the fairest system in the long run since it can exist between two people or billions of people. That's not to say it isn't a flawed system because all systems are flawed due to an inability to fully account for human nature.
I think that isolationism can be advantageous but it can also be very dangerous. If you are trying to build up a strong community, being isolated allows the community to identify strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and adapt accordingly. However, isolation can also breed jealousy and suspicion in those who are outsiders as well as breeding suspicion of outsiders. For example, isolated tribes in various parts of the world have been known to kill outsiders who stray into the tribal areas and various groups of outsiders still try to infiltrate isolated tribes. Isolation tends fail because it doesn't nurture an important aspect of human nature: the quest for knowledge. Isolationism essentially puts an end point on that quest and while some are content to stop there, many others want to keep gaining knowledge and thus conflict comes back into play.
As I said before, I don't believe that any system is completely right or completely wrong, all are flawed and it's up to the individuals of the community to establish the best system for their community (except full blown Marxism/socialism, that just doesn't work and never will without changing human nature).
I must say I like that you're a free thinker.
Libertarian doesn't always equal anarchist. I was once a full blown anarchist, the kind that believed in every person for themselves/no rules, but as I've grown older I tend to identify with either AnCaps or Minarchists (depends on the day sometimes the week). I think humans need some sort of economic system in place and the capitalism is the fairest system in the long run since it can exist between two people or billions of people. That's not to say it isn't a flawed system because all systems are flawed due to an inability to fully account for human nature.
I think that isolationism can be advantageous but it can also be very dangerous. If you are trying to build up a strong community, being isolated allows the community to identify strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and adapt accordingly. However, isolation can also breed jealousy and suspicion in those who are outsiders as well as breeding suspicion of outsiders. For example, isolated tribes in various parts of the world have been known to kill outsiders who stray into the tribal areas and various groups of outsiders still try to infiltrate isolated tribes. Isolation tends fail because it doesn't nurture an important aspect of human nature: the quest for knowledge. Isolationism essentially puts an end point on that quest and while some are content to stop there, many others want to keep gaining knowledge and thus conflict comes back into play.
As I said before, I don't believe that any system is completely right or completely wrong, all are flawed and it's up to the individuals of the community to establish the best system for their community (except full blown Marxism/socialism, that just doesn't work and never will without changing human nature).
I must say I like that you're a free thinker.
And I must say, I like that you take note of our human nature.
That's why I said libertarian/anarchist, not one or another. I agree, these things are overlapping but not quite synonymous. The concept of "true" anarchy, a lack of hierarchy, is pretty much impossible, but so too is a fair economy or trustworthy government. We as a species (along with most other animals) are driven to both chaos and order. Libertarianism acknowledges this dynamic. Every community will live by certain rules, even if those rules seem barbaric to others. Varying morals and ethics (and diets, fashions, languages, etc) are almost necessary to avoid extinction.
If I have to label myself, I lie somewhere between an anarcho-capitalist, primitive transhumanist, and survivalist housewife. That middle one is probably an oxymoron.
Isolationism can certainly be dangerous. Then again, stable long-term isolation is pretty much impossible too. At some point, even if a disaster wipes out our transportation/communication networks, communities will branch out and reconnect. Or die trying. Even if the tribe as a whole is suspicious or violent toward outsiders, all it takes is one curious individual to reach out. I don't even believe the Sentinelese are quite so isolated as we think they are. Nope, I just think they're sneaky.
That said, globalism is equally unstable. The more densely-packed our population, the faster our travel and communication, the more quickly conflict and disease will spread. Physical disease, like a virulent pathogen, or psychological disease, like mass hysteria and social contagion. We get pruned down to isolated tribes, then we branch out into global empires. Over and over again, whether we like it or not, until the dying sun devours us. Kinda fucked up, but kinda beautiful too.
Diplomatic posts have their time and place, in the springtime of expanding communities. But we seem to approach a sociocultural autumn, so to speak. Those nations in arms with each other are strong and weak for the exact same reason: the rapid exchange of both wealth and ruin. As the plant spreads, its leaves may grow thin.
And I must say, I like that you take note of our human nature.
That's why I said libertarian/anarchist, not one or another. I agree, these things are overlapping but not quite synonymous. The concept of "true" anarchy, a lack of hierarchy, is pretty much impossible, but so too is a fair economy or trustworthy government. We as a species (along with most other animals) are driven to both chaos and order. Libertarianism acknowledges this dynamic. Every community will live by certain rules, even if those rules seem barbaric to others. Varying morals and ethics (and diets, fashions, languages, etc) are almost necessary to avoid extinction.
If I have to label myself, I lie somewhere between an anarcho-capitalist, primitive transhumanist, and survivalist housewife. That middle one is probably an oxymoron.
Isolationism can certainly be dangerous. Then again, stable long-term isolation is pretty much impossible too. At some point, even if a disaster wipes out our transportation/communication networks, communities will branch out and reconnect. Or die trying. Even if the tribe as a whole is suspicious or violent toward outsiders, all it takes is one curious individual to reach out. I don't even believe the Sentinelese are quite so isolated as we think they are. Nope, I just think they're sneaky.
That said, globalism is equally unstable. The more densely-packed our population, the faster our travel and communication, the more quickly conflict and disease will spread. Physical disease, like a virulent pathogen, or psychological disease, like mass hysteria and social contagion. We get pruned down to isolated tribes, then we branch out into global empires. Over and over again, whether we like it or not, until the dying sun devours us. Kinda fucked up, but kinda beautiful too.
Diplomatic posts have their time and place, in the springtime of expanding communities. But we seem to approach a sociocultural autumn, so to speak. Those nations in arms with each other are strong and weak for the exact same reason: the rapid exchange of both wealth and ruin. As the plant spreads, its leaves may grow thin.
That would depend on if you are AnCap Libertarian or Minarchist Libertarian. A minarchist would argue that the post is necessary since government should only exist to resolve disputes and protect its citizens. AnCaps would argue that trade should be unfettered and that the post is unnecessary. That said, I haven't met many (if any) AnCaps who believe in communities or nations being isolationist since Capitalism can (and does for the most part) work on a global scale. Conflicts are part of human nature and can happen in any size community. I don't think any socio-economic system can prevent them from occurring.