military expeditions

Never mind the current (pseudo) Liberal Party of Canada, what Canada needs is classical liberalism.

But what is exactly classical liberalism?

Basically, classical liberalism is the opposition of (left or right wing) socialism in a way that classical liberalism is based on individual rights, a government which lives within its means and free markets. Also, classical liberalism is for national defense but against military expeditions and any statist forces which are intrusive in our lives as individuals.

Classical liberalism is also for sound money, property rights as a tool of social emancipation and a social policy which is based on one main aspect, »live and let live ».

Also, classical liberalism is the enemy of corporatism, whatever »goodies » that any given organization have by the state, then for organizations which are trying to use state power to get their means and ends.

This is why as opposed to modern North American pseudo-liberalism, classical liberals see social enginnering as something dangerous to all citizens because it gives too much power to the state.

In conclusion, I do think that especially based on the fact that Canadians should look into classical liberalism and see it as the best of both worlds.

Ideas which leads to a substainable future for our children and grandchildren, ideas that put personal initiative before »do-gooder » paternalism and ideas that put genuine solidarity before the nationalisation of »good ».

And winning the battle of ideas is much more important (and much more difficult) in this case then winning the political battle which is the easy task.

First of all, I am very critical of socialism in all its forms.

But, again, even through »mainstream » social-democrats won’t like that, neoconservatism is just a form of social-democracy.

Even historically, neoconservativism didn’t come from »paleoconservatism » but from American progressives who were for the Vietnam War.

My first critic of neoconservatism is with their foreign policy. Even with the fact that it is unfortunate that war could actually be accepted as a neo-keynesian economic policy of stimulation (which goes against the Broken Window fallacy). Even through I am far from being a naive pacifist, even with »good intentions », it’s difficult to say anything good in doing military expeditions. In the contrary, except for conscription, the Swiss model of national defense is close to my views on national defense.

Again, I do not consider myself an useful idiot. I believe that North Koreans are living in a despotic open-air prison and Syrian people are being massacrated by a totalitarian government, liberating them by military means have an absolute probability of inentended consequences. Plus like in all military conflicts, doing a war is AWFULLY expansive for every taxpayer and for the next generations. Also, the problem is like in any war you finish at the end of killing civilians which have nothing to do with the war.

Of course, many social democrats don’t realize that being »conservative » or »progressive » don’t change anything about the fact that some gouvernments in the worlds had a very interventionnist foreign policy.

The only difference is that modern neoconservatism have a nationalistic defense policy based on foreign »expeditions » while »progressives » are for the usage of do-gooder organizations like the UN, which seems to be nothing else then a utopic game of mirrors.

My second critic of neoconservatism is with their crackpot fiscal policies based on high-spending and high debt. Socialists are alike, even that I cannot sometimes see the line because many neoconservatives (I am sure that many American neocons have probably never read the US constitution) are fans of both the welfare and warfare state exactly like some social democrats in this age.

Economically, I believe in sound money, I believe that the free market is the most human way possible to empower all people and that fiscality should be simple as possible for everyone and taken as locally as possible. I am also for the fact that with this freedom, there is automatically a sense of responsability that comes with it.

I also believe in localism, a live and let live social policy and the fact the property rights are the best to bring people close to their community. Of course, planning (whatever social or economic) may seems like the »easy » path, but its ALWAYS brings unintended consequences at the end.

Neoconservatives are not believing in that. In fact, they believe in a interventionnist gouvernment to bring »national greatness ». In some cases, I think it’s actually more a syndrome of acute paternalism.

Well, I am sorry to say there is no »national » greatness. For me, national greatness comes with people working hard while doing the best that they can, innovate by thinking by their own as an individual, doing sacrifices and sometimes taking risks. Many statists (or nationalists) don’t understand that a »country » or »nation » is composed of individuals firstly and not of something artificial formed by magical powers.

PS: You know what is weird, based on the US politics of the last 12 years, I think that except a few notable exceptions (anybody following closely US politics know very well who they are) is a one-party party. Let’s call it, the Inteventionnist federal gouvernment Party who have probably never read their own constitution.