Libertarian perspectives on foreign intervention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article uses excessive clichés and jargon. To maintain quality standards and accessibility, please use more neutral language and tone.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.

Part of the Politics series on Libertarianism
Schools of thought Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Left-libertarianism Minarchism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Origins Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Ideas Civil liberties Free markets Free trade Laissez-faire Liberty Individualism Non-aggression Private property Self-ownership Key issues Economic views History Parties Theories of law Views of rights Criticism of libertarianism
Politics Portal · v • d • e

Broadly speaking, while all libertarians are suspicious of a national government intervening in the internal affairs of other nations, some hold that such intervention can never be justified — that war expands government and its encroachments on the lives, liberty and property of both domestic citizens and foreign peoples — while others consider that the world is now so interconnected that especially bad conditions in another nation will eventually impact at home, thus making intervention necessary (on rare occasions) to the national government's role in national defense.

Others also argue that since the primary duty of a state is to prevent people from depriving others of their freedom, a state should step in—where reasonably possible and not to the detriment of its citizens—to rectify situations resulting from another state not having performed this duty for its own citizens. Some libertarians who reject nationalism claim that a libertarian state should protect the freedoms of all people, even those that do not live within its borders. Others deny that interventionist foreign policy actually protects foreigners, on balance, more than it disrupts and destroys their lives. This group views the state as incompetent, dangerous and malevolent in external affairs as it is in the domestic sphere, if not more, and tends to oppose the notion of "collateral damage" being acceptable.

One specific example of foreign involvement that is especially controversial is Israel. According to Free Radical, "Some libertarians believe it deserves all the financial support it gets. Other libertarians believe that [Arabs] wouldn't hate us enough to strap bombs if it weren't for our outspoken support of Israel and presence in the region." The Ayn Rand Institute, though not libertarian itself, is very influential in libertarian thought, and supports Israel ^[1]. In regard to intervention for the purposes of liberation, Rand says "Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation has the right to invade...any...slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent 'rights' of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses." (Ayn Rand, from The Virtue of Selfishness) The paleolibertarian LewRockwell.com opposes U.S. support for Israel and intervention in the region in general. ^[2]