Libertarians For Foreign Intervention

I see comments like this here and there in various comments to liberal blogs, and in quotes from various Republican blog apparatchiks:

I'm a Libertarian, but I support the Bush Doctrine, and Bush's government generally.

In other words, X and Not X.

I'm not a libertarian, and will never be, because I think even the best-intentioned of them (a small number) are utopians who wish away human nature, but I certainly know enough about the core precepts of libertarianism to know that the claim above borders on the ridiculous.

Libertarianism:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals. It holds that every individual should have the right to do as he pleases (with himself and his property), to the extent that doing so does not infringe on the same freedoms of others to do as they please. Often, libertarianism is defined by the principle that no one may initiate coercion against another, which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the potential initiation (threat) of such, or the use of fraud to interfere with individuals' use of their person or property. This ban on initiation of force, called the non-aggression principle, is central to the philosophy of many libertarians and is related to the principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership.

Bush Doctrine:

The salient elements of the Bush Doctrine may be summarized as:

Preemption

• A policy of pre-emptive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction.

The right of self-defence should be extended in order to authorise pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US. In the case of Iraq, American military action was preventive rather than pre-emptive.

Unilateralism

• The right of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multi-lateral solutions cannot be found.

Strength Beyond Challenge

• The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.

Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions

• A policy of actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. As Bush stated at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

Libertarianism may not conflict with the overall goals of the fourth point, and may be neutral with regard to the second and third (though I would argue otherwise in both cases).   But the essence of libertarianism is to be completely at odds with the first element of the "Bush Doctrine".

And as far as the rest of the Bush Administration's governance, anyone who is truly a libertarian (see, e.g., John Henley) should be in a permanent state of aghast rage over the incursions on civil liberties and personal freedoms advocated and carried out by the Bush Administration and the rest of the Republican Extremists running the country.

Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who supports George Bush is a liar. They may be lying to themselves, or maybe it's just a credibility schtick (see. e.g., Glenn Reynolds), but they're lying to you for sure.

Comments

[Gary Boatwright]

Excellent analysis! I spent a little time over at Q&A during the Swiftboat dustup, just to try and figure out how Liberatrian Hawks reconciled those two beliefs.

The answer is that they don't. They just ignore the inconsistencies and pretend they are still libertarians. McQ mentioned that he had some sort of feud going with Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, which doesn't surprise me.

Q&A is also a supply sider blog which is less contradictory, but they also ignore Bush's big government conservatism, so they are double hypocrites.