As a fiscal conservative with libertarian tendencies, I find this movement or philosophy or whatever you want to call it, fascinating.
The one place I think Dale needs to define the views a little better is in foreign policy. The two principles of foreign policy are as follows:
"1. A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
2. A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected."
Dale does state under the first principle: "As we are starting to see in the Mideast , a forthright policy of Democracy promotion can go far in bringing hope to oppressed peoples, and can encourage them to begin standing up to their tyrants."
This would seem to imply support for the Iraq War.
However, that "forthright policy" was brought about as a result of the use of U.S. military force. But were American interests "directly affected", as the second principle states? I can easily make an argument that they were indirectly affected, but NOT directly affected. At least not immediately.
I would add to the second principle: "A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected or there is a high probability and motivation for American interests to be directly affected in the foreseeable future."
Saddam Hussein's history was such that his neighbors would never be safe as long as he was in charge of Iraq. His actions, including his disregard for the U.N.'s requests, created a high probability of a threat to American interests. His rhetoric showed his motivation to create a new Persian Empire.
It may seem like I am nitpicking on Dale's wording, but the truth is I find this document to be extremely important. I hope this is the beginning of the next great political movement.