Libertarians have a bad reputation when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, it is one of the chief impediments to many in supporting libertarian thinking, and one of the greatest criticisms of the Libertarian Party (LP). It is typically viewed by non- libertarians that libertarians falter and stumble when it comes to making and supporting foreign policy. However, most typically, when people criticize libertarians for their foreign policy thinking, it has more to do with misunderstanding on the part of the non-libertarian than it has to do with weakness in libertarian philosophy. Understanding various aspects and nuances of libertarian principles and their application is key to understanding why it might appear that libertarians have a difficult time verbalizing consistent foreign policy positions. The first thing people must understand is a very important distinction – libertarianism (with a small “l”) is a political philosophy that applies to governments of any nation. Often, because Americans are so vocal and get the most coverage of libertarianism, it is assumed that it is a wholly American line of thinking, and people make the mistake of confusing the political philosophy with the American LP, which founds its positions on the political philosophy but only exists in the United States. Small “l” libertarianism is international in scope. If American libertarians look more broadly, we can find far more friends in other nations than we might think. Often, international libertarians are not familiar with the name but still follow the same or similar philosophies.
Because libertarianism has no nation, it has no foreigners. As such, it is impossible for libertarianism to have a foreign policy. There are no foreigners for which it can form a policy. So, the distinction between political parties and philosophy is exceptionally important in breaking through the confusion others hold on libertarian foreign policy.
In terms of American foreign policy, the LP has a tremendous challenge. By the very nature of libertarian philosophy, it’s thinkers are independent – rugged individualists who do not think party first, but rather think of principle first and how it fits into their personal political views. If you have a political party full of people whose positions are formed in such an individualist manner, it is nearly impossible to form political positions for which every member can rally support, or even a vast majority of members. The very best the LP leadership can do is to use the party principles to develop their positions, and to approximate the general consensus of party members as best they can.
Broadly, members of the LP are anti-war. But almost everyone is anti-war. I don’t think anyone truly supports the killing of other people, except when it is an absolute necessity in order to preserve one’s own life, liberty, and property. So, how can Libertarians (with a big “L”) define when war is necessary for these protections? It gets even murkier when alliances become involved. The official platform of the LP states that it prefers trade negotiations to military entanglements. However, it would be naive to think that trade does not necessitate military protections and alliances in order to protect those trade agreements. It is also a bit naive to think that protection of a nation does not also require military alliances that create foreign entanglements.
The LP can attempt to formulate a foreign policy position by spelling it out in terms how its principles apply. However, there will still be vast disagreements even on those grounds. Principles can be easily interpreted differently by different people who are independent thinkers. By the time a policy is written it is usually already obsolete, because the nature and complexity of affairs has already changed.
So, the criticism of both large “L” and small “l” libertarians on foreign policy can only be resolved by better communication. Foreign policy positions are not going to suddenly solidify and unite all members of the LP, nor will it change the fact that libertarianism is an international philosophy. It is incumbent upon libertarians to explain the cause of the confusion and the principles which guide our thinking to explain that what appears to be disjointed, is not disjointed at all, but rather the expression of principle rather than fealty.
Poster Comment:
Libertarians have a bad reputation …
Nothing new there. Why Foreign Policy Trips Up Libertarians
Hey, Deckard….everything always trips all you of libertarians up….eh? 