There is a misconception among many people- “left”, “right”, “moderate”, etc – that those who support a foreign policy of non-intervention are the same as those supporting isolationism. Not only is this assumption incorrect, it is based on ignorance and years of misinformation. While isolationists are, by definition, non-interventionists, they’re also ardent nationalists, or protectionists.
Wikipedia defines isolationism as “a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).” In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.”
The key difference between isolationism and non-interventionism (or interventionists, for that matter) is that most everyone practices non-interventionism in his/her private life. How can I be sure that most people practice non-intervention in their private life? It’s actually quite easy. The principle of non-intervention is related to the non-aggression axiom, which states “that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.” Most everyone gets through the day without interfering in the life of other people. Sure, you interact with people, this is the individual equivalent of international free-trade. However, you rarely, if ever, involve yourself in the disputes of other people, unless the dispute involves a friend, loved one, or someone that asks for your assistance. This is the individual equivalent to the philosophy proposed by Thomas Jefferson, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none.”
In “Inclined to Liberty” Louis Carabini explains the small group/large group fallacy, “in a small setting, it is easy to envision all the effects of an action, thereby giving a proposal a more accurate evaluation. Reasoning and common sense (intuition) can be valuable tools when predicting the outcome of a proposed policy or event within a small group. However, such tools become far less reliable when assessing outcomes in larger groups. When we interact with others in small groups, our instincts, for the most part, tell us without much deliberation, that we can achieve our goals with less effort and conflict when the means to those goals align with ‘the Golden Rule.’ In a family, neighborhood, company, business relationship, or similar small group, most of us will adopt ‘the Golden Rule’ as our guide. However, we tend to abandon that concept when it comes to a large political group.”
If non-intervention is not only practiced, but welcomed by individuals and small groups of people; why should it not be practiced by the nation as a whole?