Short version of Libertarian philosophy: I got mine, fuck you.
If the French had "minded their own business" we'd all be living in South Canada. And of course there's the love of the Confederacy among freedom loving Libertarians, because damn that Lincoln and his interfering with the right of people to own other people.
If Libertarians were saying 'it's a great idea to support these people, but I'm not sure that [insert specific mechanism of helping] would be effective' that would be one thing. But the blanket hostility to the basic idea betrays it for what it is, xenophobia and narrow minded selflessness masquerading as principle.
I do quite a bit of libertarian bashing here, but there's a reason for that, and the above is exactly why. Far too many libertarians ascribe quite a bit of meaning to the idea of non-interventionism. That's a wonderful principle to have when the issue is whether to conquer a free people, commit genocide to rid the land mass of the indigenous, and to make the new territory your own. That's a far cry from responding to someone shouting "FIRE!" Not responding to a cry for help is wrong and shows a lack of principle.
"Non-intervention" is a subject that has been discussed since our nation was founded. Washington (and others) were quite adamant about avoiding "foreign entanglements," but like all things from the Founding Fathers, it is important to keep them in the context of the time, based on the the world at the time.
At the time, Europe was a series of nations under feudal control. The Royals were a small band of uncles, aunts, and cousins. They were continually feuding with one another and had no qualms about raising armies to fight with one another over a slight, or to make their empires larger out of greed. There are regions of Europe that have been fought over for centuries, for exactly these reasons. The outcome of these battles were for King X to steal the land from his cousin Queen Y. It had nothing to do with an oppressed people throwing off the shackles of tyranny. The people themselves were not at war with their government. Their tyrannical leaders were at war with other tyrannical leaders.
It was those petty squabbles that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and was the context of the "foreign entanglement" principle of Washington (from his Farewell Address):
"Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
And:
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1799
(Emphasis mine.)
When it came to supporting a people in doing what we had done (separating ourselves from King George), the Founders were quite united in showing support. If (as the French had done in our case) the people who were in a state of revolution were doing so with the purpose (and the ability) to form a new government, founded on the principle of liberty for all, and had a chance of success (i.e., were large enough and united in their desire), we were duty-bound to support it. How we might support it was the subject of debate, not if we were obliged to help them.
"Countries... have a right to be free, and we a right to aid them, as a strong man has a right to assist a weak one assailed by a robber or murderer."- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816
Not all libertarians operate with the same set of principles, or interpret the dogma in the same way, but far too many (as Mr. Dondero accurately describes) take the non-intervention philosophy too far and in the wrong direction, not understanding the specific context of the "no foreign entanglements" idea.
Moral relevancy is a problem, in general, and it rears its ugly head among the Left, Right, and Middle, but libertarians have taken it to a high art. Equating the rescue of the oppressed and desperate with imperialism (or "foreign entanglement") is quite a leap, and defies the basic tenets of the responsibility of free people to act to protect and support each other.
Libertarians, in general (not universally) have a problem with obligations and duties, and that is why they will be forever marginalized as a group interested not in liberty for all, but a group focused on liberty for me, but none for thee.
I realize that libertarians are not conservatives, but the basic principles of liberty, of a psychically-moral human being, cannot be better stated than from the well known quote from Edmund Burke:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Libertarians can choose to incorporate that principle into their ideology, or they can identify themselves as being nothing more than mooches, living off the goodness and courage of others.
Posts
