I was listening to Dennis Prager the other day and he said something that I have been thinking about since. He noted that libertarians, like the left, totally fail on foreign policy. They fail to fight evil. They are isolationists who simply ignore evil. I don't think Prager is correct. The libertarian would surely oppose coercion. Government should not forcibly make citizens fight wars. Government should not forcibly require other nations to do anything that would infringe on that public's private property rights.
However, could an argument be made for a country to invade another country? The libertarian argument would be that if our private property rights are threatened or under fire, then a defensive action would make sense. So, if it could be shown or argued that some regime is indeed ready to attack the U.S. or U.S. property, then would defensive action make sense? Would this apply to Saddam Hussein or Iran? How about Hitler or Stalin? Now, what would libertarians propose to do about genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, or in Darfur? Wouldn't the libertarian view be that if enough people voluntarily agreed to stop the bloodshed by hiring others to do so or doing it themselves, this would be all right? Since the aggressing party in such conflicts is violating basic human right of personal ownership, would it be invalid to argue that if individuals voluntarily agree to stop this violation it would not be libertarian? What do you think about this issue?
An Open Letter to Andy Schlafly
11 hours ago