Getting Serious About Getting Serious

Hello webmaster...Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts about Getting Serious About Getting Serious comin..holy Thursday .

The complaints I hear about Libertaians the most are:

1. No effective transitional policies. It is always the big bang.

2. They can concieve of no reason for collective action.

i.e. Libertarians are anarchists without the bomb throwing. Having been a Libertarian for 15 years before 9/11 I'd have to agree.

You will not get a Libertarian world if every place but Libertopia settles the alpha male problem the old fashioned way. In fact in such a world Libertopia will be strangled or conquered.

--==--

In fact GWB is the most libertarian president we have had in a long time. Medical Savings Accounts are an excellent transition away from our current socialized medicine mess. The policy is inherently messy and slow. But it has one big advantage - it got enough votes to pass.

Same for privatization of Social Security. It will be ugly. But it is a move in the right direction.

--==--

Politics requires compromise to get results. Something utopians are never comfortable with. And Libertarians are nothing if not utopian.

'My position is more along the lines of not understanding how libertarians could possibly justify them, not people in general.'

Matt gave a handily succinct answer to this question above. I've tried to say something similar, but ended up waffling.


I think it would be useful here to repeat the example of power projection I gave.

'The key example I gave above was the current situation in the Ukraine. If, hypothetically, an election which could be proven to be rigged led to a popular uprising which was then suppressed by Russian or Russian supported military power, America would have a clear business responding. The projection of US (military and economic) and European (economic) power is, in fact, a big factor in keeping Russia from intervening more forcefully to protect its perceived sphere of influence.'

Your response:

'It seems to me that under this doctrine, the U.S. government would have the right, if not the responsibility, to overturn every other government in existance that we do not consider sufficiently democratic and/or sufficiently legitimate.'

Now, your claim is so obviously different from and wider than mine, that the slippery slope was the only thing I could think you might be arguing.

Howevever, apparently I was wrong:

'But this is not the argument I've used. My argument is of the following form: "P is conceptually indistinguishible from Q. If we are not willing to apply the same reasoning to Q as we are to P, we are being inconsistent." Note that this is not the same as saying that doing P will cause us to do Q; it is merely an argument that we should treat like things alike and reason consistently.'

If you're genuinely arguing that there is no difference between protecting a current democracy from external or externally funded military aggression, and attacking those stable countries we consider insufficiently democratic, I can only say that you're wrong. There is a significant difference. The US government is not obliged in either case to intervene, but where US interests are at stake a clear case can be made in the first instance for the right to intervene.


'There's nothing wrong with using one's own judgement.'

Good, we're agreed.


'There is something wrong with having no standards/justifications/reasons to explain one's own positions, and at the same time expect others to agree with your positions.'

There's something wrong with expecting others to agree regardless of the standards/justifications/reasons provided. I don't recall doing that over the course of this discussion.

'If every case is a new case, with no overarching principles or standards for comparison, and each new moral dilemma can only be resolved by consulting one's private moral intuition, then moral discussion is largely impossible.'

Every case IS a new case. The overarching principles or standards for comparison are useful in educating judgement, but they will never replace it. Likewise, the purpose of moral discussion is to educate and improve individual decision making. I don't quite understand the idea that it is only useful if some situations are exactly the same as some others.

I'm still not quite sure how any of this renders me akin to a 6 year old, but I'm sure we'll get to that.

Quite agree, but these are just a small subset of the wars which have been fought over many centuries to protect interests beyond a country's borders. These wars do happen, and always have happened, with wide public support. Claiming that they shouldn't is absolutely fine, but if you claim that you can't understand how people could possibly justify them, then that is a lack of understanding on your part.

My position is more along the lines of not understanding how libertarians could possibly justify them, not people in general.

I gave a specific instance in the Ukraine in which I consider projection of power would be absolutely justified. You said 'If this were justified, it seems to me that we'd have the RIGHT, if not the RESPONSIBILITY, to overturn democratic governments elsewhere'.

No, we wouldn't. One instance is not a series of different instances. I bring the slippery slope issue up in just about every discussion with you, because it's almost always relevant. Making a judgement call on one particular foreign policy implies nothing about the justification of other hypothetical foreign policies.

This is not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument is of the form "If we do P, which is acceptable, we will inevitably be forced to do Q, and then R, and then S - all of which are unacceptable. Therefore, we must not do P." And as I mentioned before, even if this was the argument I used, it is a valid form of argument so long as the mechanism is sufficiently explained.

But this is not the argument I've used. My argument is of the following form: "P is conceptually indistinguishible from Q. If we are not willing to apply the same reasoning to Q as we are to P, we are being inconsistent." Note that this is not the same as saying that doing P will cause us to do Q; it is merely an argument that we should treat like things alike and reason consistently.

There are many countries in which political leadership is not democratically chosen to our liking. There is nothing special about the Ukraine (at least nothing you have mentioned) that would make it an exceptional, unique case. If there are no unique characteristics relevant to this discussion, than the Ukraine cannot be conceptually distinguished from other like-countries and we would be inconsistent if we failed to apply our reasoning to all countries in similar circumstances.

If you're not using your own judgement in this discussion, can you direct me to the person who is telling you which positions to take?

There's nothing wrong with using one's own judgement. There is something wrong with having no standards/justifications/reasons to explain one's own positions, and at the same time expect others to agree with your positions. If every case is a new case, with no overarching principles or standards for comparison, and each new moral dilemma can only be resolved by consulting one's private moral intuition, then moral discussion is largely impossible. Each person says how they feel and that is the end of it. There can be no common ground.

Catallarchy. Got it.
I'll being keeping an eye on you and your shady, more-libertarian-than-thou arguments over there, then.
Think I'm all typed out on this topic for now.
And this comments thread is getting a little long to scroll through (particularly considering it's basically only been the 3 of us shouting past each other!)
Cheers, then....
:-)

'Oh, I thought we were talking about the war in Iraq. Silly me.'

No, your arguments re: the war in Iraq are mostly sound. I jumped in when you generalised your argument to war in general.

'And while I'm no expert in just war theory, the belief that international war is justified only in cases of self-defense is certainly not a novel or unpopular one'

Just war theory is similar conceptually to the UN. Lip service has been paid to it since its inception, but whenever leaders perceive the need to act, the tenets are either ignored or fudged.


'Humanitarian wars for the promotion of "democracy" and "liberty" abroad are a fairly recent invention, and not a very popular one, globally speaking.'

Quite agree, but these are just a small subset of the wars which have been fought over many centuries to protect interests beyond a country's borders. These wars do happen, and always have happened, with wide public support. Claiming that they shouldn't is absolutely fine, but if you claim that you can't understand how people could possibly justify them, then that is a lack of understanding on your part.


With regard to 'i don't know what posts you've been reading.....' I've been reading yours.

I gave a specific instance in the Ukraine in which I consider projection of power would be absolutely justified. You said 'If this were justified, it seems to me that we'd have the RIGHT, if not the RESPONSIBILITY, to overturn democratic governments elsewhere'.

No, we wouldn't. One instance is not a series of different instances. I bring the slippery slope issue up in just about every discussion with you, because it's almost always relevant. Making a judgement call on one particular foreign policy implies nothing about the justification of other hypothetical foreign policies.

And with regard to:

'I'm glad we can reach an agreement. You've certainly expounded a serious and practical political philosophy - one familiar and extensively used by six-year-olds:

"But mom, I don't want to go to sleep yet!" "But mom, I want more ice cream!" Color me and mom convinced.'

If you're not using your own judgement in this discussion, can you direct me to the person who is telling you which positions to take? I might be better off talking to them :).

I blog at Catallarchy. You can find the link by clicking on my name in any of my posts.

I've enjoyed the argument as well.

Huh - didn't know you had a blog. What's the link?
I gotta admit, much as I disagree with you on certain points, I find the arguments thought-provoking.
It's usually more useful for me to hear thoughtful people making arguments with which I disagree than people who are already on the same wavelength as me.
And you're certainly verbose enough to update regularly.
(I don't mean that as a dig at our host - Will's no Instapundit, but he's been bloggin a lot more than he used to.)

As for those latest points:
"Always yes" not in an absolute, mathematical sense, more like a default setting that could, in principle, be over-ridden. But, if the question is already a serious topic of national debate, then, almost certainly, the answer should always be: "YES."

George Orwell said a lot of cool things. I admire that guy. Related quote: "Short words are best and old words, when short, are best of all." - Churchill. Another man I admire.
(And, yeah, 'tomfoolery' is good - sounds kinda Mark Twain-ish to me, since we're on the topic of dead white guys I look up to.)

As for war being hell; cruelty, ghastly ugliness and tragedy in its DNA, something no-one in their right mind could take lightly: yes.
That's true. This war, like every other, is like that. Still, it is a just war.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

You seriously think that the vast majority of the world agree with you that projection of power beyond borders is never justified except explicitly in defence, or did you forget what was being discussed?

Oh, I thought we were talking about the war in Iraq. Silly me. And while I'm no expert in just war theory, the belief that international war is justified only in cases of self-defense is certainly not a novel or unpopular one. Humanitarian wars for the promotion of "democracy" and "liberty" abroad are a fairly recent invention, and not a very popular one, globally speaking.

It's interesting, on the one hand you rail against anyone who claims that projection of power in the pursuit of strategic interests is sometimes justified, using your favoured slippery slope argument (the, to my mind bizarre 'if we determine that this instance is justified, how can we claim that that entirely different instance is not?'). On the other hand, you baulk at the idea that your position is 'never'. You can't have this one both ways.

I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but they certainly weren't mine. I never said anything even remotely similar to "if we determine that this instance is justified, how can we claim that that entirely different instance is not?," since (a) neither you nor I agreed on an instance that is justified and (b) I never compared this nonexistant instance to any other instance. I did ask whether you and McClain would be willing to apply your reasoning elsewhere, which would entail policing the globe and engaging in war against a significant portion of it.

As I noted over at Justin Logan's blog in response to your similar question, the slippery slope argument is not invalid, so long as its mechanisms are sufficiently explained. Libertarians use the slippery slope argument against socialists all the time; hell, Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom" is one big slippery slope argument, as indicated by the title.

The fact that I've identified Afghanistan as a justified act of war should immediately dispel any notion that my position is "never."

"war is justified whenever I feel it is justified, and unjustified whenever I don't."

You have stated my position in a nutshell, and the only sensible position to have. Judgement on a situation by situation basis is the way political decisions are always made.

I'm glad we can reach an agreement. You've certainly expounded a serious and practical political philosophy - one familiar and extensively used by six-year-olds:

"But mom, I don't want to go to sleep yet!" "But mom, I want more ice cream!" Color me and mom convinced.

If and whenever the question comes up "Should we go to war against this evil dictator or not?" the answer is always yes.

Really? Always yes? No matter the cost in terms of civilian casualties on both sides, military casualties on both sides, unchecked power for politicians, bureacrats, and military personnel, restrictions of civil liberties at home, and yes, even tax dollars? (Incidentally, you've got to be the first person claiming to be a libertarian I've ever met who is entirely unconcerned with the coerciveness of taxation.)

It seems to me that anyone who is willing to put an infinite value on overthrowing dictators - hell, anyone who is willing to put an infinite value on anything, needs to rethink their philosophy, and perhaps take a few courses in economics.

But I still don't see how a monomaniacal fixation on the illegitimacy of taxes is enough to constitute a real political party.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in this thread, taxation is not my only, or even my primary objection to perpetual war for perpetual peace. For example, I mentioned American civilian and military casualties, Iraqi "collateral damage", civil rights abuses at home and abroad, among other objectionable things. If I had to narrow it down to one main objection, it would be Randolph Bourne's famous objection that war is the health of the state. It is sheer tomfoolery (great word!) to think that the state can simultaneously grow large enough to solve the world's problems but remain small enough to restrict itself to minimal domestic duties. We have seen this again and again: every single war in every single state in all of recorded history provided an excuse to expand the scope and powers of that state.

Maybe that's the difference: I'm talking about "How can the Libertarian Party grow and have some serious impact in the real world?"

Well, that's easy. If all we want to do is grow the Libertarian Party and have an impact on the world, we need do nothing more than adopt the strategies of the other two parties; namely, look to public opinion polls and give the electorate (and political contributors) what they apparently want, good and hard. But then, we no longer need to call ourselves the Libertarian Party, as such a party would have little to do with libertarianism.

You're talking about "What views should a strictly orthodox, ideologically pure libertarian espouse?"

Not at all. As anyone who reads my blog for an extended period of time should well know, I am far from an strictly orthodox, ideologically pure libertarian. I believe in a great many unlibertarian things, like large-scale war that necessarily leads to the death of innocent non-combatants, not enforcing contracts when those contracts are used to uphold collusive agreements, not enforcing property rights when property is used to encircle other property holders and extort money from them if they wish to exit (an off-shoot of the previous point), preferring a society in which nonlibertarian legal systems are allowed to compete with each other over a society in which a single monopolistic libertarian legal system is imposed on all, and in general, aggressively violating the rights of innocent people when not doing so would lead to disastrous consequences.

I'm thinking of principles as inspirations and compass points ("Let's go that way: towards more liberty and justice for all!")

Except that your "inspirations" and "principles" won't actually achieve your intended result. Replacing the United Nations with the United States is a recipe for massive reduction of liberty, both for U.S. citizens and everyone else.

Kicking people out o'your party for not being ideologically pure enough is not just kinda creepy.

I could care less about the Libertarian Party. I certainly don't have, nor would I want to have the power to determine who gets to be a card-carrying member of the LP. For what it's worth, I don't even agree with the LP's pledge of allegiance, which states: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." I certainly do believe in and advocate initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals when such means are necessary and to achieve desirable ends.

I've been talking about libertarianism as an abstract political philosophy, not a political party. In order for the term to have meaning, we must be able to distinguish libertarians from non-libertarians. The positions you have offered cannot be distinguished from the same positions offered by socialists, modern liberals, conservatives, neoconservatives, or anyone else. As I've said, a desire to promote liberty across the globe is meaningless unless we first define what liberty means and what promoting it entails. Everyone likes liberty, and freedom, and democracy, and rights, and ice cream, and patriotism, and teddy bears.

George Orwell, in Politics and the English Language, wrote the following:

"In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."

How do you know I'm not in Iraq?
No, it's true, I'm actually in Boston.
But there are reasons the "chickenhawk" argument doesn't work on me, which I won't divulge on the internet.
And, yeah, that's a long list of evil dictators.
If I had my way we'd just start at the beginning and keep pluggin away until they were all gone.
Which we may be doing, actually (yay!)
But I did say 'if and whenever it comes up.'
I haven't seen any big controversy over whether we ought to invade Saudi Arabia right now.
If it becomes a serious national debate, somewhere down the road, I know which side I'll be on. Until it does, I know we've got other fish to fry first. The Saudis will just have to wait their turn.

'Of course, when taking world opinion into account, I fall squarely in the vast majority. If we are appealing to public opinion to resolve points of disagreement related to justice, it is not at all clear why we should prefer the opinions of Americans to the opinion of the world at large.'

You seriously think that the vast majority of the world agree with you that projection of power beyond borders is never justified except explicitly in defence, or did you forget what was being discussed?

'How is my position "never"? I've given numerous examples and conditions under which I believe war with foreign entities is justified.'

It's interesting, on the one hand you rail against anyone who claims that projection of power in the pursuit of strategic interests is sometimes justified, using your favoured slippery slope argument (the, to my mind bizarre 'if we determine that this instance is justified, how can we claim that that entirely different instance is not?'). On the other hand, you baulk at the idea that your position is 'never'. You can't have this one both ways.


"war is justified whenever I feel it is justified, and unjustified whenever I don't."

You have stated my position in a nutshell, and the only sensible position to have. Judgement on a situation by situation basis is the way political decisions are always made.

Why on earth would anyone think that war was unjustified on the basis that they felt it justified?

Oh, and I do have a rule about going to war:
If and whenever the question comes up "Should we go to war against this evil dictator or not?" the answer is always yes.
If your philosophy doesn't give that answer, then there's something wrong with your philosophy.

I've got quite a list of evil dictators:
The House of Saud
Kim Jong Il
Pervez Musharaaf
Robert Mugabe
Bashar al-Asad
...just to start.

Therefore, according to McClain's philosophy of "libertarianism", engaging in a war with Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, and Syria, just to start, is a moral imperative. And how are we to fight these wars? In what manner are we to raise the men and material to feed this Libertarian Crusade that is consistent with a philosophy that values liberty? Apparently, all we need to do is conjure up the blood and steel from the magically endless trough of the "all volunteer military". After all, the costs of war are really only measured in a few measly tax dollars.

I'm only left with one nagging question. If invading Iraq is such a moral imperative, why aren't you on patrol in Fallujah with the 1st Marine or driving a Brown and Root supply convoy through the desert right now instead of posting here?

Oh, and I do have a rule about going to war:
If and whenever the question comes up "Should we go to war against this evil dictator or not?" the answer is always yes.
If your philosophy doesn't give that answer, then there's something wrong with your philosophy.

Lawd-a-mercy! Guess there are some folks who would take all that nonsense seriously.
I agree: it's sad that wasn't satire.
But I still don't see how a monomaniacal fixation on the illegitimacy of taxes is enough to constitute a real political party.
Maybe that's the difference: I'm talking about "How can the Libertarian Party grow and have some serious impact in the real world?"
You're talking about "What views should a strictly orthodox, ideologically pure libertarian espouse?"
I'm thinking of principles as inspirations and compass points ("Let's go that way: towards more liberty and justice for all!")
You're taking principles as axioms and trying to work out some coherent political agenda deductively.
Bottom line: Democracy demands compromise in return for power. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Kicking people out o'your party for not being ideologically pure enough is not just kinda creepy.
It's also a recipe for political impotence.

Two more nitpicks:

You don't even know where to begin to address a point of contention on which you fall squarely in the minority.

Of course, when taking world opinion into account, I fall squarely in the vast majority. If we are appealing to public opinion to resolve points of disagreement related to justice, it is not at all clear why we should prefer the opinions of Americans to the opinion of the world at large.

The discussion on foreign intervention, as I see it, is 'under what circumstances?' and 'with what goals?', rather than either Mclain's 'always' or your 'never'.

How is my position "never"? I've given numerous examples and conditions under which I believe war with foreign entities is justified. You, on the other hand, have provided no rules with which we can determine whether a proposed war is justified or not. Yours appears to be the same position as McClain's - that is, "war is justified whenever I feel it is justified, and unjustified whenever I don't."

Bernard,

I don't know how to begin to address the phrase "Little practical value in terms of foreign policy" for the same reason I don't know how to begin to address the phrase, "when did you stop beating your wife?" Both phrases contain within themselves certain assumptions, and cannot be addressed directly without necessarily granting some of the assumptions.

Before we can determine which foreign policies have practical value, we first need to determine the proper role of government as it relates to other entities outside its jurisdiction. Is the proper role of U.S. government defending its citizens from foreign and domestic threats, as the founding fathers and most libertarians have traditionally argued? Is the proper role of the U.S. government defending Iraqis from their own government, as McClain and other neocons argue? Or perhaps the govenrment's proper role is to maintain electoral justice in the Ukraine, as you have suggested.

The burden of proof does not fall on me to argue against the status quo; it falls on everyone who wants the government to take action to restrict liberty, even when such restriction is justified.

This is a familiar point, reiterated by classical liberals, and usually credited to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. Tibor Machan reformulates the argument:

When a program is advocated by someone, others are entitled to know his reason if the program involves them in some unavoidable manner. If I decided tomorrow that I will try, from now on, to help America's consumers by writing letters to business executives, accompanying buyers on their trips to the store, publishing books about the quality and variety of products available, or the like, no one else need be worried about why I am doing this. I may be someone with altruistic motives, a guilt complex, or a plan to strike it rich through a consumer-protection business. Other people are free to ignore my efforts, or to join in them if they so choose. But they have no right to demand that I furnish them with a justification for my actions. (They could conclude, even rightly, that I am wasting my time, that I will go broke, or something of that sort - just as they could judge my plans to be very valuable. But they cannot justifiably demand that I account to them as to why I am embarking on my mission.)

The case is different when my plans must necessarily involve others. Take, for example, the editorial which urged a Federal consumer-protection agency. Others will be involved - including taxpayers, business employees who must comply with regulations, and so on. At this juncture, it seems reasonable to demand that proponents of such a scheme fully explain and justify why other persons should be involved and obliged to join in their mission.

Going back to what Bernard wrote,

"If you wish to convince us that no intervention is justified under any circumstances except direct attack on the US, you need to explain how that policy will benefit Americans more than the current policy of projected stability (pax Americana) and considered intervention (often poorly realised on the 'considered' part)."

Even if I were to accept the burden of proof, which as I mentioned above falls on you and not me, this would not be the place to explain why the consequences of non-interventionism are preferable to "projected stability" and "considered intervention." This question requires a long and detailed answer, and is the kind of thing better addressed in a Cato policy paper than in a blog comment thread.

Nevertheless, I can still make a few points here. First, I never claimed that "no intervention is justified under any circumstances except direct attack on the US." Intervention would surely be justified if the threat of an imminent attack were clear, as it was with Israel in 1967. The problem with the war in Iraq isn't merely that it was preemptive, but that we had no good reason to think of Iraq as a threat. Nothing changed in the international political climate to indicate that Iraq was more of a threat now than during the Clinton administration. The evidence that Saddam was harboring WMDs at the time was shaky at best, and we now know it to be a sham. (So even if libertarians want to claim that they were justified in the support for the war prior to invasion, they must realize that what we know now necessitates an end to their support.) And even putting the question of WMDs aside, there is still the question of whether the mere presence of WMDs constitutes a threat against the U.S.

Second, it is clear that the current "war on terror" is a direct result of prior U.S. interventions into the Middle East. So if you want to know why a policy of noninterventionism is preferable to "the current policy of projected stability (pax Americana) and considered intervention", look no further than 9/11.

Third, as you seem to recognize with your comment, "often poorly realised on the 'considered' part," giving the government the power to pursue a policy correctly also entails giving the government the power to pursue a policy incorrectly. Libertarians should know this better than anyone. One cannot expect the government to act correctly in the international realm while at the same time condemn that government is totally incompetant to wage war against drugs, poverty, and countless other domestic ills.

McClain,

Sadly, that wasn't satire. I've heard all of the above arguments, in more in less the same terms, used by conservatives and modern liberals to justify their preferred statist policies on grounds that these policies actually promote liberty, despite appearences.

The point is, any policy, no matter how paternalistic, can be justified on libertarian grounds if one is willing to stretch the definition of the term far past its breaking point.

You disappoint me, Micha.
I expected a witty retort or reasoned rebuttal,
Instead you take a simple satiric inversion and run it into the ground for 8 or 9 labored paragraphs.
*sigh*
Oh well, at least Will approves of your efforts!
:-)

Micha's excerpt from Justin's article:
"How is it that ... the total aggrandizement and wielding of power by one's own state in the international sphere is an unmitigated good?"

Who said it was an unmitigated good?

Justin has taken this whole argument and run it into an absolutist rathole, which is perhaps inevitable given the subject. Seeing as how libertarianism has very little to offer when it comes to the prudential decisions of foreign policy, each side is left trying to cram libertarian rhetoric into whatever prudential arguments they believe, all for the sake of maintaining narrative coherence.

But back to Justin's rhetorical question - I could argue that domestic liberty is best enhanced by vigorous projection of power, since it ensures that our own security remains the responsibility of our own elected government. Why not?

'Little practical value in terms of foreign policy? I don't even know how to begin to address that.'

And that is where your problem lies. You don't even know where to begin to address a point of contention on which you fall squarely in the minority. If you wish to convince us that no intervention is justified under any circumstances except direct attack on the US, you need to explain how that policy will benefit Americans more than the current policy of projected stability (pax Americana) and considered intervention (often poorly realised on the 'considered' part). Claiming only that you don't understand why America projects power will not sway the people who do.

The discussion on foreign intervention, as I see it, is 'under what circumstances?' and 'with what goals?', rather than either Mclain's 'always' or your 'never'.

Bernard,

On what grounds do you say that the U.S. military would have "clear business responding" to a political coup in other countries? I'm no constitutional scholar, but this certainly doesn't appear to fall within the federal government's enumerated powers. Since when is it the U.S. government's business to maintain electoral justice in other countries?

It seems to me that under this doctrine, the U.S. government would have the right, if not the responsibility, to overturn every other government in existance that we do not consider sufficiently democratic and/or sufficiently legitimate.

Little practical value in terms of foreign policy? I don't even know how to begin to address that. Since when is the practical value of a foreign policy measured in terms of our right to intervene wherever we please? I was always under the impression that the sole foreign policy purpose of a sovereign government - insofar as it has a legitimate purpose at all - is to protect its sovereignty and the people living under its sovereignty. I.e., self-defense. That is all the "practical value" a foreign policy needs, unless, of course, you first assume that the purpose of a sovereign government is to police the globe. Perhaps that is the proper purpose of government; if so, we need an argument for this position, and preferably an argument on libertarian grounds.

Justin Logan summed up the problem for libertarian hawks nicely, partly drawing on Matt Yglesias:

"The notion that anything even remotely resembling libertarianism could underwrite an effort to conscript huge quantities of resources from the American public and deploy them in an attempt to wholly remake the social and political order in a foreign country is too absurd to merit a rebuttal. This is an argument properly directed at egalitarian liberals, and we have reason to be asked to produce some specific arguments about why the dim prospects for succeeding at this were ex ante knowable (such arguments can, I think, be fairly easily produced) and/or why, given the opportunity costs, nation-building in Iraq was not a wise place to deploy the resources in question (this argument, I think, can be produced very easily). As long as the conversation is supposed to be proceeding on the shared basis of libertarianism, however, one hardly needs to say anything. It's coercion, it's planning, it's every non-libertarian thing under the sun."

This is what I think the pro-war libertarians need to take up. And in addition to that, there's another theoretical point I'm not quite clear on. How is it that centralization and accumulation of state power domestically is a supreme bogey man, but the total aggrandizement and wielding of power by one's own state in the international sphere is an unmitigated good? We can certainly agree that U.S. state power is less malignant than, say, Chinese state power, but under what system of logic does it follow that we should therefore massively increase the existing power imbalances in the international sphere and make sure that at the same time we're increasing our power, we wield that power promiscuously and to the fear and chagrin of other power centers in the international arena? Is there a point at which libertarian instincts and reasoning should apply to an international Leviathan, or does American state power have some unlimited benevolent force behind it -- one that appears when entering the foreign arena -- that takes it out of the traditional libertarian views of power and into some statist views about the nature of one's own state and its infallible goodness vis-a-vis other states? Can the U.S. government ever have or wield too much power internationally in the view of the libertarian hawks?

As for “Why I’m a Libertarian:” the Republicans wanna ban gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and porn. The Democrats wanna ban guns and drugs, and kowtow to the U.N. Neither party is real great about unpopular free speech, nor at reining in the invasive overgrowth of Federal bureaucracy. Both of them lard up on the pork, acting like we need to give out Federal grant money for everything in sight.

But these are all pro-liberty positions! Gay marriage infringes upon the liberty of straight couples who would otherwise choose to engage in a sacred and traditional institution. Gay marriage, of course, threatens the sanctity of marriage, and thus threatens the liberty of traditional (i.e. man-woman) relationships.

Abortion threatens the liberty of innocent unborn children. Case closed.

Drugs threaten the liberty of family members of drug users, innocent drivers who are killed as a result of DUI, not to mention the liberty of the drug users themselves. Drugs are addictive and thus deny their users the freedom to choose to stop taking them. We must ban drugs for potential drug user's own good. And cheese.

Porn, like drugs, can be extremely addictive and has ruined untold marriages, families, relationships and jobs. Further, as many feminists have argued, it is an insult to women and is tantamount to rape. It must be banned in order to preserve the freedom of all of the aforementioned.

Guns, of course, are used by criminals, played with by children, and cause many accidents. We must ban them in order to preserve freedom of safety.

The U.N., by giving smaller nations a seat at the table, allows many countries the freedom to make decisions about global governance that they would not otherwise have. Not to mention all of the charitable work the U.N. does, promoting the freedom of all throughout the land. The U.N. bases its decisions partly on majority rule, which as we all know, and as McClain so kindly explained for us, is the very essence of freedom.

Unpopular free speech violates the liberty of the majority to dictate to the minority what they consider to be acceptable within their community (broadly defined), not to mention the fact that so called "free speech" all too often violates the freedom of women, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/etc and people of color to go about their lives without having to tolerate unchecked racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth.

Federal and state grant money provides artists, scientists, academics, and countless others the freedom to pursue their dreams, which would not be possible in the absence of this funding. And of course, let's not forget that federal spending, or "pork" as you so call it, is a direct result of the will of the majority, as acted by their duly elected representatives.

How can you oppose these things and call yourself a libertarian? Real libertarians care about expanding liberty at home and abroad -- and not just this silly, nonconsequential so-called-liberty of tax-payers, but real liberty, as outlined above.

Do you hate freedom, sir? Well, so do the terrorists.

“International Populist;” I kinda like that. Not quite as sexy as “International Pop Star,” but I’m not playing in bands anymore, so I’ll take what I can get. Beats being an anarchist, that’s for sure (although props to you, Micha, for admitting it.) Even at my most punk rock (1980s) I felt anarchy was a good symbol, not a good philosophy.
As for Marx, well, utopian Victorian blowhards don’t interest me much. I guess he had good intentions, but you know what they say about the road to hell. Tried to read that ‘Communist Manifesto’ once, but I just put it down once it started trying to run some shell game with property rights.
As for “Why I’m a Libertarian:” the Republicans wanna ban gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and porn. The Democrats wanna ban guns and drugs, and kowtow to the U.N.
Neither party is real great about unpopular free speech, nor at reining in the invasive overgrowth of Federal bureaucracy. Both of them lard up on the pork, acting like we need to give out Federal grant money for everything in sight. So: I would like both major parties to move in a more Libertarian direction on domestic issues. We don’t need to make a Federal case out of everything.
HOWEVER, I don’t find it a baffling paradox to support BOTH a more Libertarian domestic policy AND a ruthlessly hawkish foreign policy explicitly designed to forcibly advance the interests of libertarians and democratic populists around the world AT THE EXPENSE OF evil dictators who hate my country.
I think it’s called ‘enlightened self-interest.’
Oh, and Matt? We already have a theme song, thanks. It's "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel? Micha does!

Your interlocutor (McClain) knows that he likes calling himself a libertarian, but nothing else. Your admirable patience is apparently wasted.

But he has got me thinking about the idea of international libertarian solidarity - we could even have a theme song, like "The Internationale." And if the US Libertarian Party is full of crackpots and nutcases, just imagine what McClain's friends in the Iraqi chapter are like.

'But I do recognize a distinction between defensive war and offensive nation building, even when done for supposed humanitarian reasons.'

The key example I gave above was the current situation in the Ukraine. If, hypothetically, an election which could be proven to be rigged led to a popular uprising which was then suppressed by Russian or Russian supported military power, America would have a clear business responding. The projection of US (military and economic) and European (economic) power is, in fact, a big factor in keeping Russia from intervening more forcefully to protect its perceived sphere of influence.

If libertarianism precluded this (I don't believe it does), then the ideology would have little practical value in terms of foreign policy.

I never said it's not libertarian to care about other libertarians. I said it's not libertarian to care about other libertarians using other people's money. Just as it's not libertarian to care about poor, starving, homeless children living in third-world countries using other people's money, even though these same children are certainly worth caring about using one's own money.

Your affinity for majority rule unbound by any constraints - constitutional, ethical, or otherwise - indicates that you are no friend of libertarianism, or even small-government conservativism. Yours appears to be some sort of international populism, which is praiseworthy only because it is slightly less annoying than nationalistic populism.

Tell me, McClain - why do you call yourself a libertarian? Is there any government action, foreign or domestic, you would consider unacceptable, even if voiced in the language of liberty, however defined?

To put it another way, nearly any conceivable policy proposal, no matter how statist, can be justified on the grounds that it makes at least one person more free. Even Karl Marx put his arguments for communism in this form. To wit,

"None of the supposed rights of man, therefore, go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is, as a member of civil society; that is, an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice... Thus man was not liberated from religion; he received religious liberty. He was not liberated from property; he received the liberty to own property. He was not liberated from the egoism of business; he received the liberty to engage in business."
- On the Jewish Question

By banning the practice of religion, the state has liberated man from religion. By banning the private ownership of property, the state has liberated man from property. By banning the egoism of business, the state has liberated man from the egoism of business.

According to McClain's reasonong, then, Marx is a libertarian.

Bernard,

I don't recall claiming that libertarianism "precludes the projection of power internationally." I certainly don't object to projecting power internationally when a powerful response is warranted, as it was in response to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

As an anarchist, I generally don't make sharp distinctions between national borders. But I do recognize a distinction between defensive war and offensive nation building, even when done for supposed humanitarian reasons. As I've argued elsewhere,

"If there’s one thing a State ought to do - so long as it’s monopolizing the right to do so - it is to protect its subjects from foreign aggression. This is not to argue that preemptive war and all of the other creative interpretations of self-defense are justified on libertarian grounds. Rather, it is to say that monopolizing the use of retaliatory force while at the same time not actually retaliating when defense is necessary and justified is an ever greater offense than monopolization alone."

Again, let me reiterate: libertarianism does not preclude the projection of power internationally, given sufficient reasons. Libertarianism does preclude the projection of power internationally for the reasons McClain has given - namely, welfare for non-U.S. citizens. Libertarianism should be broad enough to include both anarchists and minarchists. But to make it broad enough to include McClain's rationale would make it impossible to exclude the most statist neoconservative or modern liberal.

If you don't believe in anything except non-coercion, that doesn't make you a Libertarian: it makes you some kind of Pacifistic Nihilist.
And, sorry to disillusion you, but the U.S. government's only reason for existence really is just to serve the will of the people. Our Constitution is only the more-or-less settled expression of the majority's will, long-term. Binding on the government unless and until we say otherwise, yes, but 'We the people' reserve the right to rewrite it.
Also, despite what you said to Bernard, this IS a popularity contest.
Obtaining political power in a democracy is, pretty much by definition, always gonna boil down to a popularity contest.
But Libertarianism, as defined by you, consists almost entirely of complaining about the United States government. Particularly its taxes and wars. News flash: a government which can't levy taxes and wage war isn't a government.
So now we're talking Libertarian = Pacifistic Nihilistic Anarchists.
This may explain the nearly total failure of any Libertarian politicians to ever get elected to any office at any level of government anywhere in the country.
You may be right on one level.
Registered Libertarian voter though I am, my vision of Libertarianism may be largely at odds with that of the party. My more expansive and positive vision of Libertarians siding with like-minded folks around the world to fight for more liberty everywhere for everyone may never be embraced by more traditional Libertarians such as yourself.
Fortunately, the feckless, navel-gazing fantasies of "pure" Libertarians have never been and never will be embraced by a voting majority in America or anywhere else.
So I guess I won’t worry too much about it. Especially since you tell me it’s “Not Libertarian” to care about other Libertarians.

'The arguments McClain has given in favor of the war in Iraq could be used to justify any and every conceivable government action, no matter how coercive. If this is libertarianism, then libertarianism has no meaning.'

And were I he, that would be absolutely relevant to me. As I've said, most of your rebuttal looks very sound to me. The difficulty I have is with what I believe to be your claim that libertarianism precludes the projection of power internationally.

As I've made clear, I don't believe it does.

If libertarian ideology specifically precluded the projection of power internationally to protect American interests then very few people indeed would be libertarian.

This is not a popularity contest, Bernard. The arguments McClain has given in favor of the war in Iraq could be used to justify any and every conceivable government action, no matter how coercive. If this is libertarianism, then libertarianism has no meaning.

The proper role of a libertarian is to do whatever it takes to increase the amount of liberty in the world.

This is false. Libertarians do not believe in positive rights. We have no positive obligation to increase the amount of liberty in the world. The only obligations individuals have, according to libertarianism, is the obligation to refrain from the use of coercion. Using coercion to redistribute resources from one group of people to benefit another is at odds with this doctrine.

The proper role of the U.S. government is to do whatever the voters tell it to do.

No, the proper role of the U.S. government, if there is one at all, is to act within the bounds of the Consitution and the powers enumerated therein. Waging perpetual war for the supposed interests of non-U.S. citizens, at the enormous cost of bodily harm, lives, and taxpayer dollars, is not one of those enumerated powers.

"The proper role for the U.S. government, from a libertarian perspective, is not to make the world a more libertarian place, but to make the U.S. a more libertarian place. We are not the world's policeman."

Micha, I agree wholeheartedly with a significant part of your argument. The only point i'd make is the one I made above. All ideology leaves room for significant disagreement on foreign policy objectives. If libertarian ideology specifically precluded the projection of power internationally to protect American interests then very few people indeed would be libertarian. As the current situation in the Ukraine shows, liberalising reform frequently needs protection in order to survive and benefit us in the long term. The discussion, as far as i'm concerned, is when and with what objectives the US should intervene in the world, rather than whether it ever ought to at all.

"The proper role for the U.S. government, from a libertarian perspective, is not to make the world a more libertarian place, but to make the U.S. a more libertarian place. We are not the world's policeman."

See, that's the part where you get all tangled up.
"We" libertarians, or "we" the U.S. of A.?
The proper role of a libertarian is to do whatever it takes to increase the amount of liberty in the world.
The proper role of the U.S. government is to do whatever the voters tell it to do.
Thank God the majority of American voters understand liberty much better than many self-styled "Libertarians."

Gee, I dunno: why don't you tell me how the world would be a better, more Libertarian place if the U.S. hadn't defeated the festering slave empire of the Confederacy, or the Axis of WWII?

Had the North allowed the South to secede, hundreds of thousands of men would not have needlessly died, even more would not have been needlessly wounded, the federal government would not have grown as fast as it did, the institution of federalism would be stronger than it is today, and slavery would have become politically and economically unsustainable over time. See this book review for more.

I'm not as familiar with WWII (and note that as I said before, with regard to the Civil War and WWII, a much stronger case can be made for a defensive war than for our current incursion into Iraq), but the way you phrased your question belies your collectivism. The proper role for the U.S. government, from a libertarian perspective, is not to make the world a more libertarian place, but to make the U.S. a more libertarian place. We are not the world's policeman. To be so would require massive, coercive redistribution from unwilling Americans.

But a thief who picks a few pockets, uses the money to buy a gun, and uses his ill-gotten gun to assassinate a serial killer will never be convicted if I'm on the jury.

And if you are one of the people the thief stole from? And if the thief openly admits that he will continue to steal from you, so long as bad people exist for him to kill?

I'm trying to make at least a few of them understand that at least a few equally well-intentioned people support it.

I never denied that some war supporters are well-intentioned. I did deny that one can currently support the war, knowing what we know now, and still do so for libertarian reasons.

I'm not keeping my argument "straight" because, when you're the center, your arguments need to be circular.
After all, everything that's not a contradiction is a tautology....

Well, at least we can both agree that your arguments are false and mine are true.

"What would be unacceptable about those outcomes...?"
Gee, I dunno: why don't you tell me how the world would be a better, more Libertarian place if the U.S. hadn't defeated the festering slave empire of the Confederacy, or the Axis of WWII?

"The basic libertarian principle is this: Government must never do anything that an individual has no right doing."
OK, I can see where you're coming from with that.
An over-idealistic principle, perhaps, and easy to refute by reductio ad absurdum, to be sure, but worth stating and defending nevertheless.
I'll agree with you on that point, to a point.
But a thief who picks a few pockets, uses the money to buy a gun, and uses his ill-gotten gun to assassinate a serial killer will never be convicted if I'm on the jury.

I am aware that a significant number of well-intentioned people oppose this war.
I'm trying to make at least a few of them understand that at least a few equally well-intentioned people support it.
Thanks, Bernard, for clarifying the "Laissez-Faire" issue.
The paleo-cons object to this war because it doesn't serve the national interest, and the leftists object because it does.
I'm in the center, where Libertarians, according to me, belong.
I'm not keeping my argument "straight" because, when you're the center, your arguments need to be circular.
After all, everything that's not a contradiction is a tautology....
:-)

Good point, Bernard. On the other hand, the reasons I gave for my opposition to the war were not purely reasons of laissez faire. So when McClain makes the above accusation, the implication is that only those who "worship a god called 'Lassez-Faire' would object to this war," since he ignores all of the non-laissez faire reasons for opposition.

Further, it's interesting that McClain belittles the laissez faire position, since earlier in this thread he tried to argue that the correct libertarian position should be pro-war. Apparently, he can't keep his argument straight.

McClain:
'And I can see why those who worship a god called "Lassez-Faire" would object to this war.'

Micha:
'Is everyone else other than war supporters "worshipping a god called Laissez Faire"?'

Saying that you can see why a particular group object to something is quite different from claiming that all who object to something must belong to a particular group. Although members of Amnesty International oppose torture, it doesn't follow that all who oppose torture are members of Amnesty International.

Well, Micha, that all looks very reasonable at first glance.
And I can see why those who worship a god called "Lassez-Faire" would object to this war.

Are you aware that many non-libertarians, including many leftists as well as many paleoconservatives (as distinguished from neoconservatives) object to this war?

Are you aware that the vast majority of the rest of the world objected to this war?

Is everyone else other than a few Americans being unreasonable? Is everyone else other than war supporters "worshipping a god called Laissez Faire"?

But if you can't go to war until you've first saved all the starving children in Africa, then you can never go to war.

Straw man. I never said this. I did say that your reasoning, if consistent, should lead us to save all the starving children in Africa in addition to waging war against all dictatorships. Are you willing to apply your arguments consistently, or not?

Worse yet, you seem to claim we should never go to war so long as "war" means "someone gets hurt." Are you a secret pacifist?

Straw man. I never said this. I did say that we should never go to war so long as "war" means "more people will be hurt than helped as a result of our actions." Are you a secret sadist?

Is this what you're trying to pass off as serious foreign policy? "We promise never to fight, unless invaded." Would've been unacceptably different outcomes to the Civil War and WWII, had that policy been followed!

What would be unacceptable or unserious about those outcomes? Not to mention that in both of those cases, a much stronger case can be made for a defensive war than for our current incursion into Iraq.

Maybe it's just my bias, but I hear your objections as excuses, not principles. The only actual principle I hear you asserting is wholly negative: "The Government Must Never Do Anything."

Previously you complained about "doctrinaire "Libertarians" who need not trouble themselves with practical issues when they can fall back on simple principles. Now you complain that libertarians have no principles, but only care about practical issues. Well, which is it? Either you care about principles or you don't. Either you care about pragmatism, or you don't. Otherwise, your criticism rings hollow as "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

The basic libertarian principle is this: Government must never do anything that an individual has no right doing. An individual has no right to steal from, kill, or otherwise use violence against innocent people. If an individual does not have this right, then no government does either.

Oh, and since you seem genuinely unclear on this: killing tyrants and handing out food stamps are not indistinguishable activities. If you can't see why the government should do one but not the other, well, I suspect it's not because you can't tell the difference, but because you don't really believe the government has any right to do anything at all.

If you think killing tyrants by massively redistributing other peoples money is distinguishable from feeding poor people by massively redistributing other peoples money, please enlighten me on how one should make this distinction. Otherwise, you must admit that you have no argument.

In answer to your last assertion, I supported the U.S. invasion into Afghanistan, since they actually attacked us and posed a threat to our safety, whereas Iraq did not.

Well, Micha, that all looks very reasonable at first glance.
And I can see why those who worship a god called "Lassez-Faire" would object to this war.
But if you can't go to war until you've first saved all the starving children in Africa, then you can never go to war.
Worse yet, you seem to claim we should never go to war so long as "war" means "someone gets hurt." Are you a secret pacifist?
Is this what you're trying to pass off as serious foreign policy? "We promise never to fight, unless invaded." Would've been unacceptably different outcomes to the Civil War and WWII, had that policy been followed!
Maybe it's just my bias, but I hear your objections as excuses, not principles. The only actual principle I hear you asserting is wholly negative: "The Government Must Never Do Anything."
Oh, and since you seem genuinely unclear on this: killing tyrants and handing out food stamps are not indistinguishable activities. If you can't see why the government should do one but not the other, well, I suspect it's not because you can't tell the difference, but because you don't really believe the government has any right to do anything at all.

He who overthrows an evil dictator strikes a blow for liberty.

That is true. The overthrow of Saddam in and of itself is a good thing. But that is only one aspect of the war. The massive taxation, American civilian and military casualties, Iraqi "collateral damage", civil rights abuses at home and abroad, and so forth, are all very bad things.

Those who recognize that these bad things far outweigh any possible benefits from overthrowing Saddam, and thus opposed and continue to oppose the war, are certainly friends of liberty.

And even if it were the case that the benefits of liberty for the Iraqi people of overthrowing Saddam outweighed the costs of liberty for Americans, this would still not justify a U.S. invasion, unless we are willing to support other massive redistribution schemes on libertarian grounds.

There are many evil dictators in the world who should be overthrown. Does that mean that the proper role for the U.S. military is to expand its role as world policeman and invade Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, Libya, Iran,...?

Extreme poverty can deprive a person of the same kinds of things as being ruled by a vicious dictator. Why should the U.S. government address one problem and not the other? Surely, starving children in Africa are suffering just as much as any Iraqi living under Saddam. Should the U.S. government implement massive redistribution schemes to care for these impoverished children on libertarian grounds?

The point I've been trying to get across, (which you would easily grasp, if it weren't for your vanity) is this:
He who overthrows an evil dictator strikes a blow for liberty.
He who opposes this, shows himself no friend of liberty.
Many of us are under the impression that "Libertarian" means: "in favor of liberty."
Sorry to hear that's not the case.
Evidently, (according to you, at any rate,) The "Libertarian" Party doesn't really represent what its name implies.
Kinda like those "People's Democratic Republic of..." totalitarian hellholes.
But, hey: those are Someone Else's totalitarian hellholes, right? Not our problem, are they?
As good, doctrinaire 'Libertarians,' we don't have to trouble our pretty little heads about such things, now do we?
Sweeet!
Thanks for the...uh...'enlightenment.'

Taxes are one component of the libertarian argument against perpetual war for perpetual peace. There are others.

The point I've been trying to get across in this thread, which you apparently cannot grasp, is that the arguments you have given in favor of the war are perfectly appropriate when used by leftists (but still wrong, in my opinion), inappropriate when used by small-government conservatives, and way out of bounds when used by supposed libertarians.

There are (or were) some plausible, but ultimately unconvincing libertarian arguments for the war. Yours is not one of them. I think it's pretty clear to anyone even remotely familiar with the basics of libertarian thought that you don't know what you are talking about.

Ah, so it IS taxes.
Well, good luck with your quest for representation without taxation.
:-)

Boo-hoo! The government used several of my precious dollars to fund free public health care for all! It's SO not fair!

Boo-hoo! The government used several of my precious dollars to fund free food and housing for all! It's SO not fair!

Are these libertarian arguments?

Mr. Henley,
I'm glad you're having a good time Rocking Out with Micha!
Sounds like fun.
Maybe you should stick to the rocking, though, since rational argument doesn't seem to be your main strength....
:-)

Bernard: Yeah, the opinion split doesn't necessarily render libertarianism untenable.
I'm just pointing out that it seems to split along nationalist/internationalist lines.
Which is a topic I haven't really seen addressed; just thought I'd throw it out there, with a few arguments for my side attached.

Micha: I don't share your antiquarian enthusiasm for failed Soviet agricultural experiments, so I got nothin for ya on that tangent.
The "massive political coercion" part, though...I gotta ask: what the heck are you talking about?
Our armed forces are ALL-VOLUNTEER, remember?
And they're commanded by a duly elected representative of the people, remember?
Where's the coercion?
Oh wait...PLEASE tell me you're not talking about the income tax! ('Boo-hoo! The government used several of my precious dollars to overthrow a genocidal tyrant! It's SO not fair!')

Such discernment, foresight, and moral nobility!

I'll grant you that I rock. Micha Ghertner rocks more, but I'm pretty damn rocking.

You, on the other hand, have conjured the single most bizarre argument for Iraq Wars Phase III and IV that I've heard yet, and I thought I'd heard them all. We're helping "libertarian Iraqis." Yah. My fear is that, maybe we can indeed free the libertarian Iraqis - from their prison in your imagination - but they'll likely balk when we try to send them to Iraq. ("No fair! We liked it better in McLain's head!") Is the ethnic cleansing of someone's daydreams a war crime?

Ideology, in my experience, is almost always presented in the context of a single, closed system. This means that a world of competing and overlapping systems will always present challenges to the ideologue.

Libertarianism, for me, is about the robust public defence of certain key personal and property rights, and the absence of public intervention elsewhere.

Do I think the government is justified in using force to defend my neighbour's property from thieves? Sure.

Do I think the government would be justified in using force to defend those rights I deem that Iraqi's should have? I'm sceptical on practical grounds, but I can see an ideological argument.

And so to my point. Yes, libertarians disagree over foreign policy. However, if that marks libertarianism as untennable then conservatism and liberalism are both untennable too, because every ideological group had significant internal disagreement about the war.

I am puzzled where you get the idea that "OTHER LIBERTARIANS" are more deserving of our help than non-libertarians. And even granting that assumption, perhaps libertarians should have no objections to socialized medicine and collective farming, so long as the proceeds are used only to help poor, sick, and starving libetarians?

When you make arguments in favor of using massive political coercion to "help" the helpless, and claim that anyone who opposes this abuse of government is merely using a "fake political movement as cover for raw selfishness," you clearly have no idea what libertarianism is all about. Be honest and admit that instead of pretending that you are one.

OK, so: Iraqi libertarians don't exist.
But, if they did, we'd be under no obligation to help them.
Such discernment, foresight, and moral nobility!
No wonder people are falling all over themselves to vote Libertarian....
;-)

Uh, what Iraqi libertarians? Seriously. Leaving aside the whole "friends of liberty everywhere but guardians only of our own" thing, which has a pretty distinguished pedigree, where are these Iraqi libertarians?

What we actually seem to be doing, as things go south, is installing an unstable alliance of two collectivisms (Shiite and Kurdish) over a third (Sunni Arab). That's not exactly a Mesopotamian Free State Project.

I'm not talking about the poor, sick, collective farmers. (And you know this....)
I'm talking about OTHER LIBERTARIANS.
You're against helping them? Then why be one?
Why not just say "I'm lookin' out for #1; it's all about ME all day, every day," and leave it at that?
What kind of wuss needs a fake political movement as cover for raw selfishness?

The Libertarian case for the socialized medicine is: we're fighting because we're allies of the sick poor people, and they need our help. Badly.

The Libertarian case for the collective farming is: we're fighting because we're allies of the hungry poor people, and they need our help. Badly.

If this is libertarianism, what isn't?

That rant was posted by me: McClain.
Don't know why my name didn't show up in the "Posted by" field.

Libertarians: Nationalist or internationalist?
Seems like Libertarians care almost exclusively about what 'their' state should or (more often) shouldn't do TO THEM.
But what about other states? What about people like themselves in those other states?
The Libertarian case for the war in Iraq is: we're fighting because we're allies of the libertarian Iraqis, and they needed our help. Badly.
God knows, as do we all, that Saddam was the mortal enemy of all libertarian Iraqis.
But the majority of Libertarians in this country seem to argue against the war, saying, in effect: "Screw those libertarian Iraqis. All I care about is the effect this war has on MY country. Iraq wasn't our problem, and we should've let it go to hell and stay there on its own dime." Which is not only a myopically isolationist policy in this 'global-village-sized' world, but also a much more nationalistic sentiment than one expects to hear from the average libertarian.
If I should discount the opinions and lives of Iraqi libertarians so steeply that I agitate against their interests, where, then, does my moral solidarity with other (American) libertarians come from? Ethnic kinship?
Or is moral solidarity between libertarians merely a polite fiction masking temporary alliances between amoral individuals whose selfish interests happen to overlap?
This latter answer would, no doubt, explain why organizing Libertarians is like herding cats, and why the party remains (after how many decades now?) only marginally less marginal than the God-(and Man)-forsaken American Communist Party.