In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

I look forward to debating the up-wing from a libertarian or classic liberal standpoint, as I agree with some of your ideas but don't agree with others. Yet I am not sure where this party would stand on domestic economic and social issues, as you have spoken only of foreign policy. Because the debate becomes a whole lot bigger if you include the entirety of politics needed for a party platform. Just as a side note, I reject the two-party dominated system in America and applaud your enthusiasm, if it may be misdirected. "There must be many nations out there. These nations all have freedom of trade and immigration." Yes. Freedom of trade makes everyone better off in the end since the exchange is voluntary, but I don't have to argue that since we are in agreement. What I would do from an immigration standpoint is have borders in name only, allowing everyone to freely move where they may. The claim that immigrants "take our jobs" makes no sense, since they nicely compliment our skillset (very high and very low skill to our average skill) and create more jobs in America. And if you think about in in the sense of nations competing like companies, shouldn't we free up the people to decide where they want to live so the nation-market system would be most efficient that way? "One nation being a power should be encouraged." Not sure about the specifics of how you would encourage it, but I disagree with the concept since power corrupts. It's like saying we should encourage Walmart to get bigger so it can help out other nations. The whole point of competition is that every participant helps themselves, and merely having someone to compete against helps them help themselves. We should support whatever nation is the most efficient, just like you buy from whoever offers the best goods for the cheapest price. "Nations that are falling way behind should have ultimatums to make reforms or the leaders of these impoverished nations get removed by a military force." My insides started to writhe when I read that sentence. Force is never the answer, it always screws up things. This is the reason we have free immigration for- if people don't like the poor country, they don't have to choose it. Going off of the country-company analogy (I really like this analogy) what would happen if Home Depot said to Ma and Pa's Tool Shop "We don't like the way you are running your business, so we're going to send it the army to take your shop from you and give it to someone else (a.k.a. Eminent Domain). What happens is that if people don't like the way their country/store is being run, they go to a different store to buy their tools. And if people still like their country, who are we to tell them what to do? Some more related points: government has an influence on the economy, but is never the sole factor in its well being. Much more often things like droughts, wars from a previous administration, or rising wool prices in India can drastically effect a country's economic well being. And economic trajectory is slow and very hard to predict. It is a complicated matter where changes can sometimes take generations to go into effect. You cannot simply point to a country and say that it is poor because of the current president/dictator. And even more frightening still is who gets to decide when a country is doing badly, or what the ultimatums are. Will it be the dominant power? Who here thinks that if Donald Trump had the ability to put his competitors out of business by force he wouldn't do it? If you want to see a loose statement of my positions as opposed to those of the Up Wing, you could look at Libertarian Party Platform, though I would prefer to keep this debate constrained to foreign policy. I say loose because I would put ideology above party politics any day.