This is the fourth installment in a series where I design, with your help, a small, hypothetical new nation called Ascendia, based on small government, personal liberty, and free markets. Please read parts one, two and three if you have not yet before reading this article so that you’re up to speed. Today I will lay out how Ascendia will handle its foreign policy.
Foreign Policy
Ascendia’s foreign policy would be based on these four foundations:
- Trade
- Peace
- Nonintervention
- Political Independence
Trade means that foreign trade will be heavily encouraged and almost completely unregulated. Ascendia would use the same free trade models that turned Hong Kong into a tiny, useless, barren rock with no natural resources into the number one economy in the entire world in less than 40 years.
This is not an article about Ascendia’s trade policies; I’ll have to discuss that at another time. The point here is that all of Ascendia’s foreign policy would be conducive to free and extensive trade with other nations, and barriers to international trade would be forbidden by the Enforceable Constitution.
Embassies would be set up in most (or all) foreign nations, again, to foster trade and goodwill.
Peace means that it would be illegal for Ascendia to militarily attack any other country in any way whatsoever unless that country attacked Ascendian resources (real or cyber) within the boarders of Ascendia first. Preemptive wars of any kind would be illegal. This would be very clearly and explicitly spelled out in the Enforceable Constitution, and any politician violating this would be expelled from office and thrown in prison by the CEA, as I discussed back in part two.
If Ascendia was actually attacked within its borders by a foreign nation or entity, the Assembly would have to pass a two-thirds vote in order to make a formal declaration of war. No military action whatsoever would be allowed until a declaration of war was formalized.
Nation building and long-term occupation of other nations would not be allowed under any conditions. Therefore, if Ascendia won a war, it would immediately bring 100% of all military troops back home.
Nonintervention means that when it came to foreign nations, Ascendia would never do things like:
- Give foreign aid (all foreign aid from the government would be illegal, but citizens of Ascendia would be allowed to send money to any nation they wished)
- Arm rebels, or provide any side of any civil war with any assistance whatsoever
- Instigate coups
- Interfere in any way with foreign elections
- Provide logistical support
- Provide intelligence
Bottom line, it would not interfere in the internal operations of any other foreign nation, ever.
Political independence means that Ascendia would be 100% free of all long-term foreign entanglements and treaties, just like George Washington said. It would never be a member in any supernational political foreign organization, such as the United Nations, NATO, and so on, and be very much like Switzerland in terms of extreme neutrality in all wars and other political disputes.
Membership in international trade organizations, such as the WTO, might be acceptable as long as the ideals of personal liberty, trade and nonintervention were obeyed. These kinds of things would be taken on a case-by-case basis.
No treaty with any other nation, other than some trade agreements, would be allowed to last more than two years. Ascendia would not be like the United States, which is bound by forever-treaties forcing it to go to war if any one of its numerous allies are attacked. (Why do we need to go to war if Australia is attacked? Isn’t that Australia’s problem?) Temporary treaties, lasting less than two years, such as during or right after a war or similar event, would be allowed.
Many on both the left and the right view nonintervention as the same thing as “isolationism.” As you can clearly see, Ascendia would be noninterventionist, but not isolationist in any way. It would have embassies all over the world and encourage trade and goodwill between nations. It just wouldn’t butt its nose into other nations’ businesses.
Trade, peace, nonintervention, and independence.
In the next article, I will discuss Ascendia’s military and military issues.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Antekirtt
Posted at 07:01 am, 25th February 2018I think it will be difficult to make this work. You can hope that being non-interventionist results in no one wanting to harm your country, but I don’t think it gets you into 2% territory in terms of protection; *someone* might still want to attack you – someone rabidly against libertarianism or secularism for example.
Is it really a good idea to refrain from sending a commando to dismantle a nuclear launch base before it’s fully operational, if all your intelligence is suggesting that the base is meant to be used against you?
Same thing for coups, though it might be preferable to arm the locals who want to topple whatever dictator you consider as a threat than orchestrate the coup yourself. There are just situations where the cost of not dealing the first blow is too high.
More generally speaking, I don’t believe that minding one’s business (though everyone should anyway, it’s a value that’s being completely lost nowadays) suffices as a way of avoiding trouble.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:46 am, 25th February 2018Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but it certainly puts the odds in your favor, which is the best you can do. Switzerland is proof of this; they haven’t been involved in an actual war (other than small skirmishes here and there) for over 150 years or so… in Europe!
I will answer that question in the next article when I talk about the military.
Again, we’re talking about what best puts the odds in your favor. If you want some kind of 100% guarantee I can’t give that to you, nor can anyone else.
david
Posted at 09:54 pm, 25th February 2018There was a debate going on over at “being libertarian” facebook page about tariffs. The hardcore libertarians were against tariffs on imports from other countries because “locals should have to compete.” In the example of China, it’s impossible to compete with those prices on imported goods. Slave labor, prison labor, child labor, and zero environmental laws give them the advantage of creating so many millions or billions of products cheaper than any other entity on the planet. Plus, they tariff the shit out of anything we’d try to sell to them. I’ve had several clients attempt to sell in China, only to lose their ass on tariffs, and one time have their ideas taken. Would you consider a custom tariff plan in the case of businesses from a country like China?
joelsuf
Posted at 10:09 pm, 25th February 2018I’ve been eyeballing Switzerland for a while now, seems that they are doing quite well. Don’t care for how socialist they are, but its certainly better than the corporatist mess we currently have over here. At least they don’t have a war fetish like this fading republic does. Do you think it is a good place for an Alpha 2 to live, Caleb?
And Ascendia is looking better and better every time I read about it. It would be awesome if it actually existed, but people hate freedom too much for it to ever exist 🙁
Investor
Posted at 04:51 am, 26th February 2018The thing is imports from china on things you dont need should never happen in any country. Its fundamentally against the basic principle of what everyone should want: import only the things you cannot make yourself and export as much as you can. The reason why it happens is precisely because of these international trade treaties. If you are able to make good clothes yourself why should you ever import them? Likewise it makes no sense to import bottled water (unless you are a desert or small island country). So most China stuff would just never be imported in the first place in any country that was not part of some big shady trade schemes.
Investor
Posted at 05:00 am, 26th February 2018As someone who has lived there Id say its a good place to live if you want a quiet life and already have a family and want to just stick to the family, or if you want to retire. Its definitely not a place for a young person, especially a young man who wants to date lots of attractive women and/or have some stable friends. That is from the point of view as an expat not speaking the local language (well) but if you do then it might be different but even then I hear the locals dont really want to interact with non-swiss people much, kinda like what I hear about some people in Japan, though over there you also have a group who have a fetish for foreigners, but the Swiss don’t.
Also as Alpha 2 I assume you are going to run your own location independent business then you would be a nutcase to live in one of the most expensive places in the world. The reason to live in Switzerland is because of the high salary, so with Switzerland the ideal thing to do is to have a company job there but one you can do remotely/visit once in a while and live somewhere cheaper. If you are Europen you can work in Geneva or some other border city and live across the border and commute on daily bases also. Then you can have 3-4 flags (you are citizen of some third 0r more country and you do your shopping online from yet another place, you earn in swiss francs but spend in euro/gbp etc) without even having your own company.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:09 am, 26th February 2018I don’t quite understand the question. I am generally against tariffs since tariffs are taxes, but they’re taxes on people in other countries trying to sell you stuff, so small tariffs under certain conditions are fine with me.
Other than the fact that Europe is collapsing and Switzerland is right in the middle of it and a landlocked country, sure.
Correct… at least in the real world. In the future we may have virtual worlds where people “live,” and it’s quite possible you’ll see libertarianish nations in there.
Dave from Oz
Posted at 02:17 pm, 26th February 2018That is, Ascendia does not have “national interests” outside its own physical borders. Citizens of Ascendia who choose to cross those borders to do business in other countries – tough shit.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:54 pm, 26th February 2018Why would they not be able to do business in other countries?
joelsuf
Posted at 01:26 pm, 27th February 2018Call my cynical, but we’ll never have that. Our love affair for statism grows every day. Its getting to the point where libertarian thinkers will be tracked down. I feel legitimately threatened by our love affair of statism and collectivism…
John C
Posted at 11:46 pm, 27th February 2018“Preemptive wars of any kind would be illegal. This would be very clearly and explicitly spelled out in the Enforceable Constitution, and any politician violating this would be expelled from office and thrown in prison by the CEA, as I discussed back in part two.”
What happens if they are threaten by other nations? For example other nations launch rockets over your nation and put speeches on wanting to nuke you or invade.
“If Ascendia was actually attacked within its borders by a foreign nation or entity, the Assembly would have to pass a two-thirds vote in order to make a formal declaration of war. No military action whatsoever would be allowed until a declaration of war was formalized.”
Also waiting for two-thirds vote, what happens if the planes are dropping bombs on your cities and tanks are rolling in? Is the military not allowed to fight with the enemy planes or tanks in Ascendia before the vote. What happens if they are attacking your air fields and missiles bases or shooting the troops. Does the army sit their and not fire back?
I can not wait to read the next part
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:10 am, 28th February 2018It depends on how they threaten.
That would be viewed as an attack and an act of war. They would retaliate.
They would take defensive action (go on high alert, mass troops on the border, etc), but not attack. I will provide great detail on this in the next article in this series.
Of course not. The military has every right to respond to any warlike actions taken within the borders of the nation without waiting for an act of war. But to engage in any combat outside the borders, they would need to wait for a formal declaration. With today’s technology it would be very easy to get the Assembly to take a very quick online vote for a declaration of war without having to physically get them all to meet in a building somewhere.
Matt T.
Posted at 08:57 pm, 28th February 2018How would Ascendia handle standards on imported goods and services? For example, TV broadcasts in the USA are required to conform to ATSC standards. So, Chinese exporters of TVs must conform to that in order to sell to the USA. I imagine that no standards would be set in a Libertarian country like Ascendia. The Ascendian market would naturally select which standards are favorable.
However, the great thing about standards is that companies building complementary products can trust that other companies will adhere to the standard. For example, Samsung makes TVs that conform to ATSC. They don’t have to worry about an American TV channel switching broadcasts from ATSC to DVB-T or something else. So, Samsung’s TVs are cheaper to make because they don’t have to add functionality to support all the broadcast standards.
I’m curious how Hong Kong handled standards. Did they just copy China’s standards? Many countries blindly adopt USA standards.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:48 pm, 1st March 2018Unless I see a compelling argument against that, yeah.
They mostly copied British standards.
MoChnk
Posted at 03:09 pm, 1st March 2018How would Ascendia handle Islam and other radical groups? In your second installment of this series you said in the comments:
But since Islam isn’t a peaceful religion and has clear imperialistic goals, what checks and balances would be there to protect Ascendia from it?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:28 pm, 1st March 2018There would be unlimited free speech, but basic crimes would still be illegal, like murder, theft, terrorism, and so on. Ascendia would be happy to have you rant and rave in a mosque about how the infidels need to be killed, but as soon as anyone from that mosque actually shot or bombed someone, your ass would be in jail or worse.
Antekirtt
Posted at 03:05 am, 2nd March 2018This is very thought-provoking. In some MENA countries trying to get more secularized, mosques are being watched, kinda-sorta, to make sure that kind of speech isn’t occurring. The problem is that there are many muslims who, though they nominally believe in all the tenets including the worst ones, can remain all their lives at the level of “mental masturbation fundamentalist”, and never become terrorists or djihadists or whatever, and it’s a very specific type of mosque preaching that can tip them over the edge and get them to go get recruited by entities like ISIS. You can’t just eliminate that “potential djihadist” demographic because it’s enormous (unlike what the left wants to think), but completely ignoring it is waaaay riskier than minimum regulation, because it can make the difference between a few thousand and several million djihadists on your hands. The texts of Islam inherently contain the seeds of all this stuff so the potential will always be there, and there may be a case for a measure of free speech limitation to strategically keep the risky demographic “inert”, so to speak.
Either way, there are now muslim countries where imams get arrested or at least removed when they preach that sort of stuff. Isn’t actively preaching for violence different from just free speech if it calls for specific (violent) action? Though I’d guess the imams easily circumvent this by keeping vague and never using names.
Liquorice
Posted at 07:22 am, 2nd March 2018I would really question whether intensively monitoring mosques would really be effective.
According to the very reliable *cough cough* mainstream media, the European secret services have been “watching” terrorists, before they finally jump the gun and try to behead a priest, blow up an airport or ram a truck through a shopping center.
So, if these atrocious acts happen while suspects are under investigation, you either have to find a more effective way, or burn even more resources in monitoring civilians. The latter would be excellent news for some of the current European leaders, but if we want a free society, we want something that actually works.
A large part of the jihad problem in Europe is a direct cause of the lavish social security system in place. It is a vicious cycle where Muslims can’t find jobs due to language and culture barrier, as well as the decrease in physical labor jobs. But, because they get free money, there is no incentive to move back to their home country. And as many Muslims are angry Alpha 1.0’s, they need a mental crutch why they need the state to take care of their family. The imperialistic side of the Qu’ran offers a relief – welfare is not given out of pity, but it is the superior Muslim community taxing the Kafirs.
As some of the less extreme Muslims state (which, ironically, would not be considered true Muslims if you take the writings of the Qu’ran 100% literally): “I have to work to feed my family, I don’t even have time for Jihad”.
Cut down the welfare state and limit the amount of money being pumped from NGO’s (a lot of the more extreme mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states) and the issue would be reduced greatly without spending a single penny or firing a single bullet.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:32 am, 2nd March 2018Nope. Read this.
You’re stating the standard European view, that certain sounds you make with your mouth should be illegal and punished by cops and courts if you make them because someone else might hear those sounds and might do something bad maybe.
It’s wrong (unless you don’t want freedom of course).
However, actively planning a terrorist attack (building bombs in your house, mapping out building schematics) could be punished under conspiracy laws. Building a bomb is not speech though.
MoChnk
Posted at 12:07 pm, 2nd March 2018I think you’re treating Islam as it were just a bunch of individual cases of random violence. But this is all organized. These are warlike actions that are first planned and organized, and then executed. Your strategy of reacting to violent acts after they have happened is the exact same strategy the police follows right now. Every time when there is a new attack the news reporter says that the person has been monitored by the police and was known to have violent tendencies.
We have to see Islam for what it is: the religion of war. There is no difference between Islam and radical Islam. When you say that Ascendia takes military interventions against any warlike actions, you would have to ban Islam altogether.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:27 pm, 2nd March 2018Nooooo no no. Your nation is bringing in Muslims by the thousands, and paying for it, and handing them free stuff forever, and coddling them in the press, then everyone’s surprised when they start blowing shit up and raping women.
Ascendia would not “bring in” anyone, and not give anyone one penny of government money for any reason ever. This prevents the problems you’re talking about. You can’t look at one policy in isolation; you have to look at all of the polices of a nation and judge them based on that. As I’ve pointed out many times, you don’t see Muslims blowing shit up in places like Hong Kong. And you wouldn’t in Ascendia.
(Also remember I’m talking about Ascendia here. I am *not* talking about what to do in Europe or the US. Those nations are already too far gone.)
MoChnk
Posted at 12:40 pm, 2nd March 2018Good point Caleb! I really need to become more rational and not freak out about such things.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:37 pm, 2nd March 2018Incorrect. Here in the U.S. it is illegal (and has been for 200 years) to directly threaten to break the law. If you threaten to murder me, I can put you in prison just for that threat. Making threats of illegal activity violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Clear and Present Danger Test.”
Also, encouraging law breaking in general (not to be confused with saying that the laws should be changed or that they’re stupid) is also illegal (and has been for 200 years) here in America. If you encourage someone to break the law, you are violating the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Bad Tendency Rule.”
Further, directly inciting a riot, or inciting violence, is illegal as well (and has been for 200 years). But in order to be found guilty of inciting a riot, it must be proven that it was “malicious and intentional” on your part.
Um………Caleb? When you wrote that article claiming that you’re supposedly pro-free speech, why did you censor yourself by saying “the F word” and “the N word” instead of just saying “the fuck word” and “the nigger word?”
In that article, you also wrote this curious thing:
Sue him? So you want the government to pass civil laws against speech you don’t like? Huh? Sue him for what? Hurting your feelings?
Also, I’m curious what your opinion is on private employers firing people for what those people do on their own private time (off the clock). Personally, I think a law should be passed against “time theft” because if I’m an employee, I may have to respect my boss’s time at work, but he has to respect my time at home.
If a boss isn’t paying you for that hour, he shouldn’t be legally allowed to control you, or your speech. Since he’s not paying you, but still thinks he can fire you if you act other than how he wants, that is slavery, and should be illegal? Agree or disagree?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 01:48 pm, 2nd March 2018There is nothing incorrect in my statement above. I’m aware it’s technically illegal to verbally threaten someone in the US under certain conditions. Doesn’t change a thing I said; “hate speech” (as just one example) is allowed in the US, it is not in most of the rest of the world, because of what I said above.
Because self-censoring is my choice and not censorship, since it’s not the government forcing me to do it via gunpoint.
The government has no right to censor me. I have every right to censor myself if I so choose.
I’m shocked I have to explain this to you. What grade are you in?
Sure. Anyone has the right to sue anyone they wish, provided it’s a loser-pay legal system.
No. No more laws!
No. If the other party can show actual physical or financial damages caused by his slander/libel, which I’m sure would be unlikely.
I think it sucks. I would never do such a thing.
No. NO MORE LAWS. WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH LAWS ALREADY. For fuck’s sake, you want more laws regulating business?
Jack do you seriously still call yourself a libertarian? That’s a serious question.
I agree.
Disagree. Your boss should be legally allowed to fire you whenever the fuck he likes, because it’s his business, not yours. And if he goes out of business because he’s constantly doing that, good, that’s his problem. It’s called freedom and capitalism, two things you are clearly uncomfortable with.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 05:05 am, 4th March 2018This was the question:
This was your answer:
That is incorrect. The correct answer is: Yes, actively preaching for violence if it calls for specific violent action is indeed different from Free Speech. “Certain sounds that you make with your mouth” are indeed illegal here (like threatening to murder someone) and always have been illegal.
That is NOT a “standard European view,” as you suggested. That is as American as apple pie.
It changes everything you said.
Exactly. Encouraging others to break the law is itself illegal. That’s not European. That’s American.
We’re not talking about hate speech. We’re talking about speech that calls for violence. The former is legal in America, while the latter is not.
For example, in the 1970s, when the American Nazi Party marched through the Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, IL and screamed that the Jews should be put into ovens (hate speech), the Supreme Court determined that that was protected speech, because the Nazis weren’t calling for the law to be broken. They were calling for the law against murder to be changed, thus exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech AND Freedom of Petition.
However, if the Nazis would have called for specific violent action in violation of existing laws, they would be criminals threatening murder, and therefore, subject to arrest.
Oh please! Of course you technically have the right to censor yourself. But my question was why a passionate lover of Free Speech such as yourself would want to censor himself.
I was under the impression that you don’t just believe in Free Speech in the Constitutional sense, but that you also subscribe to the larger philosophy of Free Speech which mitigates against the pussified notion of self-censorship and instead adopts a “this is who I am, so take it or leave it, but I will never censor myself” mentality.
Ah, okay. You were talking about defamation, not hate speech. Now I get it.
My time is my private property. It belongs to me. If I’m an employee, I choose to surrender a portion of my time to my boss in exchange for his money. It’s an even exchange – his money for my time.
But when I’m on my own time, he no longer has access to my time, and therefore, can’t tell me what to do or say. So if he fires me for something I did on my own time (not his), he is guilty of time theft and should be sued.
Further, since he mistakenly believes that he can control me on my own time against my will in exchange for giving me zero money, he is also guilty of slavery, and perhaps a form of kidnapping, thus meriting his arrest in my opinion.
I think a law like this is desperately needed in order to restore Free Speech (in the practical sense) to people who aren’t self-employed or rich like us.
Wow! You’re not going to let this go, are you?
I think the government should protect me against the theft of my private property. In my opinion, my private property includes my time. I think I’ve articulated a very libertarian view.
But when I’m off the clock it’s my time, not his. He can’t control me, unless I’ve voluntarily given him my time (in exchange for money).
Freedom and capitalism don’t condone theft. I just think that the concept of “theft” should be expanded to include “time theft.”
If you disagree, you’re saying that everyone’s Free Speech and political opinions should be either silenced, or pre-approved by the corporation you work for. In other words, you think a person’s entire personality should be pre-approved by corporate headquarters 24/7 under penalty of termination. That is totalitarian madness, not capitalism!
I remember when I was 18 and working shitty jobs (like grocery store bagger). I was lucky because this was before bosses started firing people for what they did on their own time while off work (like making a politically incorrect joke on Twitter).
Today, however, all you have to do is express your personality in ways which your boss doesn’t like while you’re on vacation and your boss can fire you. In other words, your time belongs to your boss, both on the clock and off the clock. Your entire personality – full stop – belongs to the company.
That’s not freedom. That’s not capitalism. That is corporatism and fascism!
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:18 pm, 5th March 2018Throwing people in jail for words they speak is not American as apple pie. It’s European. Rare exceptions to the rule don’t change this.
Time management. I only have a certain limited amount of time in the day to discuss topics on my blogs with my readers. These topics can and will be skewed into areas I don’t give a shit about (like race relations, as just one example) if I don’t censor myself. The good news is that I don’t have to do this very often.
Correct. But that doesn’t change the fact my time here is limited, thus need to maintain tight control over the topics I discussed and that are discussed on my blogs. If I had infinity hours in a day and infinity years on this earth, then self censorship wouldn’t be necessary.
xrorox
Posted at 06:58 am, 17th March 2018Switzerland stayed “neutral”, but actually was helping the nazi war effort with their financial services.
Hitler had nothing more to gain from invasion.
Switzerland had no strategical value.
Ascendia have some because of your coastline.
It may have a need of supranationals entities to which he can lend troops.
INTJ
Posted at 01:56 pm, 24th May 2024Great ideas, but . . .
With no allies anywhere Ascendia seems to be a juicy target for annexing and occupation. A major power with a land border would just need to roll in – promise to keep the same power structure and then replace the CES and constitution with no particular body to oppose it. A more minor power would just need to blockade until he nation falls and roll in to minimal resistance.
Through most of their existence both Hong Kong and Singapore were under British protection so did not face that type of threat.