We cannot do anything whatsoever about the war in Ukraine but along with the rest of the world, we are affected very negatively by it economically!

But there is plenty we can do here at home about the price of energy and all that flows from it economically. By embracing nuclear power as MSR thorium and inflation free energy prices therefore, as low as 3cents PKWH!
Alan B.

While libertarianism is preferable to socialism/communism, it is no substitute for conservatism. I've watched John Ruddick blathering away a few times, and I am not impressed.

At the moment, libertarianism is too small to have any effect locally; why it would be seeking to "oppose coercion in other countries" is hard to understand.

As far as I am aware there are no libertarian governments anywhere, anyhow. So who cares.

I support the idea of opposing intervention in other countries internal affairs.

Russia just wants a new security architecture for Europe that takes into account its own security concerns, (The West opposes wants Putin gone) and the US is engaged in a tech war with China, because it can't stand the idea of anyone else rivalling its military, technological or economic power.

In regards to the tech war with China the US is losing.
- Just as it's losing militarily in Ukraine and will also lose militarily in Taiwan.

China has advanced quickly with its chip manufacturing.
The US just keeps shooting itself in the foot.

The US banned chips to China,
China banned the export of metal required to make them to the West.
China also banned drone technology to the West.

Funny how you have a big problem with Ugyhurs supposedly manufacturing solar panels under Chinese slavery but no-one complains about cheap cadbury chocolate, a product of western slavery of west African nations.
This exploitation of previously french colonial nations is probably the true source of terrorism attacks in UK, France and elsewhere.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/apr/03/cadbury-faces-fresh-accusations-of-child-labour-on-cocoa-farms-in-ghana

That's how you know this thing 'Chinese Ugyhurs' is about rivalry between superpowers and nothing to do with human rights.

Promote all the interventions you want, but I'm not sure that Western policies of bringing death to others is given a pass under the harm principle, no matter how you slice it.

The articles use of alleged mistreatment of Chinese Yughers , could be considered against this article for balance, just in case we trip over propaganda in the process of looking for actual proof.
And a further point, the NGO’s are an arm of the State and on the State payroll, their supplied information should be questioned.

http://citizensparty.org.au/human-rights-mafias-junk-research-exposed

Beware of quasi-libertarianism which approves state rolls when convenient.

Collecting tax - NO.
Welfare for the poor and needy - NO.
Saving oppressed people overseas - NO.
Fighting just but non-profitable wars - NO.

but

Printing money - YES.
Protecting property - YES.
Protecting trade and commerce - YES.
Maintaining national borders - YES.

Fear neither Pharisees nor Sadducees - only the hypocrites.

Whilst Libertarians may consider role or limits of government is defined by the Harm principle, I'm not sure they are primarily guided by the concept of 'not doing harm', but rather are more interested in the idea of liberty itself.

I think this article / short podcast demonstrates this.

Ron Paul: It's Not Government's Job To Take Care Of Uninsured
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured

America seems to me in many ways like an outdated battle of ideologies.

I say this in regards to what I see as every citizens right to a basic education and standard of healthcare.
If you want a 'better than basic standard' level of education and healthcare you should pay for it yourself.

I like Ron Paul, but I don't agree with him on this.
It's one thing to argue that in the cause for liberty citizens should not be coerced by their government into paying for health insurance.
- But it certainly doesn't follow that if you choose not to pay for health insurance but then need it you should be left to die.

Leaving someone to die when you could and should help them is not in any way a good system.
('Look, there's a woman laying on the ground dying, just step over her')
You'd be doing harm by doing nothing.

America is not the best nation in the world.
They haven't even moved over to the metric system yet.
Are multiples of 10 too complicated for them?

Ultimately, if you're fighting over ideologies you may just be ignoring realities.

People argue tirelessly over whats better - socialism or capitalism.
The world needs to forget these outdated arguments, it's clear to me that the best system so far is a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
- But it has to be designed carefully in the right measure to be fair.