Interventionism, isolationism, and protectionism
Political, Economics ·Tuesday May 10, 2011 @ 00:01 EDT (link)
Interventionism is seeing that the guy next door (with the scary Arab name) bought a gun for protection, and killing him and his entire family and burning down his house before he starts something. The important thing to note here is that US interventionism (1) doesn't target only the guilty (i.e., people that have harmed those that want US protection; set aside for a moment that funding for such protection is coerced from US taxpayers), but is very indiscreet about who is killed, and (2) attacks people for opinions, not actions. That is a problem, and naturally provokes hostile responses.
Isolationism brings to mind the guys living self-sufficiently on a compound, wanting nothing to do with the outside world. They don't want to see visitors; they don't want to trade with them; they may be hostile when they show up at the door; they may defend themselves if the visitors try to force their way in. And that is their choice (unless a state is forcing it on them). Very much Japan or China before Western contact was forced on them. In modern politics, it's mostly used as a straw man argument, since nobody wants it. Trade is beneficial to both parties.
Protectionism is indeed an economic measure, as said above, although it can also involve initiation of force to stop trade entirely, rather than initiation of force to extort tariffs from voluntary traders. It tends to harm the vast mass of consumers in that they get an inferior product at a higher price, but it's very good for some local producers (until they go out of business entirely due to overseas businesses eating their lunch; see also "rust belt") and unions, and they tend to lobby for such violence to protect their overpaid and inefficient jobs at the expense of everyone else in the nation.
Now we can get to non-interventionism: it is the idea that people should only fight in self-defense (imminent threat or actual harm, not mere potential): if the neighbor buys a gun, keep an eye on him all you like, but don't shoot first unless he points it at you. It is the idea that trade (including tourism and immigration) is beneficial (due to the economic concept of comparative advantage) and should not be interfered with (oppose: isolationism, which would oppose trade). Since protectionism is intervention, in general non-interventionists would oppose it, too.
