Written by: Beck

The phrase "Libertarian foreign policy" should be recognized, but generally is not, as an oxymoron. As a regular reader of the libertarian blog Samizdata, I've been consistently (and pleasantly) surprised at the extent to which they seem to support the American & British invasion of Iraq.

Strict Libertarian (both big 'L' and small) orthodoxy opposes all forms of initiating force against others, whether internal to the state or externally. The only form of war justified under strict libertarianism is the defensive variety.

The problem is that libertarianism is basically an abstraction derived from idealistic first principles about individuality and human behavior. One could fairly accurately sum up Libertarian philosophy as, "No one has the right to infringe the free exercise & pursuit of life, liberty, and property of another individual." In other words, do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with anyone else's rights, those rights being life, liberty, and property.

The problem here is two fold. First of all, it fails to recognize the extent to which human nature is brutish and nasty. Still, I believe you can make a strong case for a libertarian-leaning state which takes into account people's innate inclination to take "short cuts." That's a discussion for another time.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, there is really very little that Libertarian idealism can do to instruct, guide, define, or explain international relations or interactions. States and their leaders, quite simply, do not behave like individuals interacting in an anarcho-capitalist marketplace. A strictly Libertarian foreign policy consists of strict isolationism. Many Libertarians would argue that the United States should never have become involved in either WWI or WWII (the assumption being that had the USA never embargoed Japanese oil imports, Pearl Harbor never would have happened). I won't bother to take the time to explain why those arguments are exceptionally foolish.

Now, back to where I started--Samizdata has frequently surprised me with their pro-war outlook. This strikes me as the proper and rational way to apply libertarian basic principles to a real life understanding of human nature. Jonathan Pearce has a post in which he discusses this very topic, which is the entire reason I've written the preceding paragraphs. That's right, you slogged through all the above so that I could say, "I agree with Jonathan Pearce." And now, what he says that I find so agreeable:

A smart and thought-provoking blogger I have recently come across, Perry Metzger, who seems to hail from the anarcho-capitalist bit of the libertarian intellectual universe, does not like the way this blog has supported the military ouster of Saddam Hussein...

Metzger asks how it is that folk who are so ardently opposed to the State can possibly countenance the use of force, including appropriation of wealth via taxation, to topple another regime deemed to be dangerous. Well, it is actually quite easy to answer that question in my view. First of all, not all libertarians believe a free society can exist without a minimal state, including one with the ability to provide external and internal security, which may include the need to take out violent and hostile foreign regimes.

Second, the supposedly sacred libertarian principle that thou shalt not initiate force against another is not very useful when it comes to judging whether regime X or Y poses your country a particular threat or not, and whether action of a Bush-style pre-emptive sort is justified and perhaps even more important, whether it is prudent. Good people will and do differ a lot about that.

Such disagreements cannot in my view be arbitrated solely by referring to abstract moral principles--although principles are of course crucial--but have to be also judged on events, by weighing up the possible consequences of an action or taking no action. In fact, taking no action and adopting a purely reactive approach to defense will also have consequences, not all of them necessarily good ones...

Couldn't have said it better myself.