U.S. Libertarians Have No Clear Definition of U.S. National Interests. This must change very soon.
Just some minutes to perhaps hours ago, I did a post about how engaged libertarians of America should want the US to be with the world. I ended with a pledge to define what I as an Independent of the US whose views can be most easily branded libertarian say US national interests are.
Allow me to begin by saying I applaud my fellow libertarians for elevating trade and diplomacy and migration as superior to warfare. But I do not applaud libertarians for their refusal to clearly define what US National interests are.
Defining “National Interest”
I hear it’s not consistent for an Independent who holds libertarian beliefs to cite a Political Realist think tank on foreign policy. But embarrassingly, CFR has the only threat level measuring device on the internet with regard to foreign threats to US national interests. I don’t always trust CFR on everything, but I find this Global Conflict Tracker of theirs to be a legit tool for clearly defining severe, moderate and trivial impacts on free trade.
This way I know what I am speaking of when I say we should only take action against initial aggressors whose aggressions are severely damaging US national interests.
But what is a national interest? Simple dictionary definition is…
- A country’s goals and ambitions beyond its borders whether economic, military or cultural.
So now we have a clear definition of US National Interests.
US Libertarians’ National Interests
From what there is to gather, free trade is the main economic goal of United States libertarianism beyond U.S. borders. Freedom of movement is the main cultural goal of United States libertarianism beyond U.S. borders. And also avoiding unstable alliances is the main military goal of United States libertarianism beyond U.S. borders.
Samples of Damages Onto US Libertarians’ National Interests
The North Korean regime, the Afghan regime and Afghan Taliban, and the Libyan Civil War are some examples of conflicts that do severe damage to different national interests.
- North Korean belligerence to South Korea severely damages free trade
- Afghanistan in its current state severely damages freedom of movement
- the Libyan Civil War severely damages the main military goal of dodging unstable military alliances
Those are just five of the seven conflicts marked by this tracker thing as critical damage to US national interest.
Also, as Leonard Peikoff rightly wrote in Ayn Rand Institute, there is a necessity to ending regimes who sponsor such conflicts that damage national interests.
Idealism Or Pragmatism?
I will go ahead and say it again: Do not go to war just for regime change, democracy promotion or cultural imperialism. Only go to Defensive war, never go to War of Aggression, but even so just to directly defend US individual citizens and US national interests.
Even libertarians who promote the Non-Aggression Principle as wholly separate from pacifism ought to at least consider that perhaps it is Pragmatism and not Idealism to be willing to use force to defend American Individuals and American Interests.
Thank you readers for reading this article of mine. Next foreign policy article’s about addressing preventive aggression vs preventive defense. Thanks for the read;