Justin Raimondo posted on antiwar.com a thoughtful critique of my essay in the recent issue of the American Conservative.
It seems to me that we both agree on the need for those of us who want to reduce the role of government in the economic and social spheres — and who take action to achieve that goal — to apply the same libertarian principles when dealing with government political-military intervention abroad. But we may be addressing different target audiences.
One problem in any discussion about “libertarians” is coming up with a definition of who these guys are anyway. Free-market conservatives? Republican free marketers? Anarchists on the political right and left? Civil libertarians? Members of the libertarian parties? Social-cultural liberals? Randians? And the list can go on and on.
I admit that my focus has been on what could be referred to as Washington-centric libertarians, those politicians, officials, activists, pundits, journalists, academics, think tankers, etc. who proclaim their commitment to free-market principles and are trying to influence the policies that are being made in Washington and those who make them.
In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to argue that decisions on foreign policy/national security are made by small political and policy elite in Washington, unlike, say, education and the environmental policies that are affected by a wider public debate. That explains why a small group of neoconservative intellectuals and operators could play such a critical role in forcing the U.S. into a long and costly military intervention in the Middle East.
And my arguments is that for many reasons Washington-centric libertarians have not played a role as countervailing non-interventionist force in this debate. Or worst, some of them have been applying their libertarian principles to help mobilize support for U.S. political-military interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Policy oriented libertarians have been quite successful in shaping some aspects of U.S. regulatory, tax, environmental, and immigration policies — as practitioners in government agencies and Congressional staffs or as analysts, columnists and television pundits. But they have been missing in action when it comes to the foreign policy and national security arenas. So when Republican officials and lawmakers searhc for foreign policy experts or when the media search for foreign policy pundits they take a look at a list that includes neo-conservatives of various persuasions.
Like Justin Raimondo I hope that Dr. Ron Paul becomes the next U.S.president and that more libertarians get elected to public office and I applaud all those who are trying to make that possible. But until that happens there is no reason why libertarians should not form alliances with other policy oriented types or infiltrate congressional staffs as part of an effort to try to influence the foreign policy debate in Washington instead of agreeing to the current informal division of labor under which they are being tasked to do economic and trade policies and the neo-conservatives are in charge of foreign policy/national security.
Luther 
Jared 
TomB 
Leon Hadar wrote:
“It seems to me that we both agree on the need for those of us who want to reduce the role of government in the economic and social spheres — and who take action to achieve that goal — to apply the same libertarian principles when dealing with government political-military intervention abroad.”
Yes, but it seems to me those libertarian principles have only limited applicability thus naturally giving libertarian voices less to say about foreign affairs, or less to *distinctively* say at least.
There’s no doubt, that is, that libertarian principles strongly go against adventuring abroad to “nation-build” or etc. But I see absolutely no violence done to libertarian principles in a country having a very strong defense if that defense is necessary. Indeed, given that libertarianism exalts liberty most of all, the defense of it from foreign threats is clearly even more important than from domestic ones.
And I think that the “libertarians” who advocate open borders are crazy: Libertarianism, it seems to me, also exalts choice, but only choice within a group choosing to exalt same. Not the choice of others from far away to come and walk in and take the benefits of our system. (And to then very possible militate against liberty and choice.)
Beyond this though, which I agree would place libertarians like me solidly against our Iraq and Afghanistan and ME adventures, I don’t know too much of what else distinct message libertarian foreign-policy would hold. In fact I think just like with immigration trying to extend some of its concepts to other foreign policy issues leads to wrong-headed conclusions. For instance, it might be argued that of course libertarianism favors free trade. “It’s “freedom” after all, right?” To trade with others even overseas without any interference, true?
But that’s baloney, it seems to me. There’s nothing about libertarianism I think that says we can’t be defensive about preserving our own system and etc. against what amounts to gross unfairness if not outright financial aggression. No different than a libertarian country has a right to defend itself against military aggression.
Libertarianism isn’t a theory of suicide I don’t think.
No doubt that with every foreign policy issue there is a libertarian take that should be considered. I just think that oftentimes that take isn’t at all distinct from the other “takes” that other philosophies have.
… None of which, needless to say, is to diminish the great contribution that Mr. Hadar in particular has made in seeing that libertarian principles have indeed been articulated in our past foreign affairs doings. I just think that very few people can do as good a job as he in carefully seeing and thinking through the somewhat limited circumstances where true libertarian principles create some distinct line of thought in the foreign policy field. And then of course there’s his great articulation of those principles too.
Again, just makes me shiver seeing some libertarians talking about just throwing open our borders. Reminds me of the crack about how we opened our minds so much in the Sixties that our brains fell out.