Confessions of a Libertarian Hawk

from Megan McArdle (November 27, 2007) - Real libertarians didn't ...:

The central problem that libertarians sort of tried to grapple with, and then gave up in favor of shouting with each other, is how to reconcile respect for sovereignty with libertarian contempt for the state--particularly in states like Iraq, where respect for human liberty was nonexistant. The libertarian literature on non-intervention as a principle in the face of vicious states has always struck me as inherently unsatisfying, and particularly, far to heavily reliant on positing previous US interventions as the primary cause of, well, everything bad in the world.

Yes, there can be other libertarian arguments against war--practical, Hayekian ones, based on the state's administrative abilities. But only the sovereignty argument arguably compels a libertarian to be against the Iraq war in order to remain a libertarian. And the sovereignty argument simply has deep problems.

Megan's tapped my mindset on the war.

I was never comfortable with the idea that all war was bad. The LP's candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, Harry Browne, wrote in detail about how every war the US has been in outside of the Revolutionary War was either wrong or brought about by U.S. meddling.

I never could get my mind around what the consequenses of "sitting out" World War Two would have been. How would the cause of individual liberty be furthered by ignoring the drive to crush it globally?

I believe in Liberty. Not as just an American right, but a Human one. I do understand the limits of government, and asking it to "save the world" from itself is not the way to go. But there are moments when stands have to be taken.

When terrorists were targeting US government installations, embassies, ships, and personnel, the argument that they were attacking us over our interference in their local disputes.

That went away with the World Trade Center. They attacked us where we live and work. Terrorists, and the Islamic radicals all cheered when that happened. It wasn't about the U.S. government anymore. It was about us, as people.

I myself days after 9/11 wrote a letter that got published in the Courier Gazette here in Rockland about how 9/11 showed how our foreign policy has real consequences. It was a knee-jerk reaction to some extent, reflexively applying libertarian talking points to the situation.

But I do still believe some of what I wrote then, that foreign policy is seen as nothing more than a game for diplomats and politicians to play that has no importance domestically. Certainly, the way that both major parties are using the war as a brickbat to score political points shows an utter lack of seriousness about the issue.

Indeed, 9/11 happened, in part, because of this casual attitude towards our foreign affairs. But it wasn't the only part. Radical Islamic movements feel genuinely threatened by how we make use of our liberties in the west. They find the free flow of these ideas into their communities something that must be stopped.

No isolationist movement can hope to keep those ideas from traveling. Globalization of communication and trade make such cross-cultural contact inevitable. So long as there are groups who wish to suppress the rights of the individual in parts of the world, the existence of and the prosperity of free societies in other parts of the world will be a threat to such groups.

When they turn to death and destruction to destroy and discredit free societies, we need to protect ourselves from them. I believe that government does have a legitimate role to play in doing this. Not an unlimited role, but a key role none the less.