a reflection published July 1991
There are good a posteriori reasons for libertarians to support a foreign policy of political neutrality, or isolationism.
For one thing, there is a very strong correlation between foreign intervention and the loss of individual liberty. For another, the costs of war often exceed the costs estimated by war's advocates, and the benefits are generally far less.
But libertarians are people of principles. Like Herbert Spencer, we are not content until our arguments are put into a priori form. With foreign policy, however, this is not as easy as most seem to think. It is not enough simply to make the equation Non-interventionism equals non-aggression,
and let it go at that.
This was demonstrated very well by Sheldon Richman in his essay No Victory for Liberty,
in the last issue. He provided many practical, a posteriori reasons to oppose the war in the Persian Gulf. But his one paragraph on first principles (pp. 26–27) was spectacularly under-argued. And his conclusion was glaringly unconvincing. Consider: The basic principle of a decent, not to mention libertarian, foreign policy must be the same as that of the physician's oath: Do no harm.
I submit that this prescription is neither decent nor libertarian. In fact, Richman himself seems to disagree with it. The first sentence of the paragraph concedes: I am willing to stipulate that a reasonable moral code would not condemn someone for killing an innocent person when it was the only way to save his own life.
Well, isn't it also okay, under certain circumstances, to put in harm's way‹and even kill‹innocent bystanders (and what philosophers call innocent shields
) in order to repel an aggressor?
Those who give a negative answer to this question trouble me. What are they willing to fight for? Will they cave in to every cleverly contrived threat?
Those who say the question is irrelevant to the Gulf War because Americans were never threatened also trouble me. Are they so opposed to that ol' bugaboo, altruism, that they are opposed on principle to charitable defense? If they see a violent conflict, do they have no impulse to use physical force to stop the fighting? Does live and let live
also always mean live and let die
?
And I wonder: Are those who say my question only applies to individuals, but not states, so utopian that only the most radical of arguments applies to our current world? I respect these people only when they refuse their social security checks and cease driving on public roads (and then only for the consistency of their folly). Contrary to one of our letter-writers this month, Prof. Lomasky's Give Bush His Due
dealt with this problem as it relates to the issue at hand. I need not rehash the good professor's argument.
For those seeking a moral rule about foreign intervention, I offer the following: Intervene in those conflicts when (a) it is in your interest to do so, and (b) you have good reason to believe you can make the situation better, and the resulting peace just.
Liberty, Vol. 4, No. 6
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|