Max Borders waxes philosophic on liberventionism:
…it was important to give teeth to 1441 — the UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq — as well as our own unilateral ultimatums — essentially to shred the “paper tiger” image of the US that seemed at one time to embolden our enemies.
Yes, invading other nations in order to make ourselves look tougher is definitely a libertarian position. In other words, country A has to beat up country B in order to ensure that country C doesn’t get any ideas. This is a joke, right?
…other libertarians believe that invasions like Iraq run afoul of the rights of those we would attack.
Such interventionist adventures do run afoul of the rights of those we would attack. Unless, of course, one believes that they have the right to kill anyone outside of their borders if they so decide. As a libertarian, not a liberventionist, I don’t believe I own that right. Some others do. I can’t see how, but then I don’t advocate killing those who aren’t trying to kill me, so I probably don’t know much of anything.
Ultimately, I think rights — as such — are conferred by constitutions at home and to a lesser degree by international alliances abroad. Beyond that, human rights are just words we can afford to use when we’re certain about our safety. To think otherwise is to be willing to die and expect fellow citizens to die for what are little more than libertarian flights of fancy.
In other words, this argument assumes that a person reserves the right to kill those who make them feel unsafe. Never mind that they didn’t actually do anything to the person who feels unsafe. This right to kill out of fear (lacking an actual threat) is somehow a given. Who has endowed this right remains a mystery, but apparently its there just the same. Borders claims that “human rights are just words” but somehow claims the right to kill those who make him feel unsafe. Let me see if I have this straight. No one on the planet has any right to live free of American military interventionism. But Americans possess the right to wage war anywhere they choose. And this is libertarianism? Fuck dude. I must be high because I just can’t grok it.
Sarcasm aside, I’m pretty sure the right to kill in the name of feeling secure isn’t a right I, or anyone else, actually possesses. Sorry, but I think that philosophy is a little closer to the embrace of state sponsored murder than anything resembling libertarianism.
Further, I can’t reconcile the use of my taxmoney (taken by force) to go around the world on nation-building interventionsim. Regardless of how hard I try, I can’t seem to find a libertarian defense of such government thievery of my money.
Killing foreigners in order to obtain emotional security, conquest and military interventionism in the name of “democracy,” big government thievery and denial of human rights aren’t libertarian traits. Not by a long shot.
James Landrith is a libertarian with distinct views about war (because he’s actually been to one), who doesn’t believe that big government interventionist wars are compatible with real libertarianism.
Other opinions:
- Mises Blog: IHS vs. Harper
- Antiwar.com Blog: Turning in His Grave
- LewRockwell.com Blog: A Question of Borders
- Will Wilkinson: Libertarian Hawks
- Clutch Pearls: Doing the Dove/Hawk Shuffle