The Folly of Liberventionism

Micha Ghertner over at Catallarcy posted an interesting comment on liberventionist foreign policy that was inspired by a comment made by Jon Henke in which he wrote:

What Balko–and the Isolationist Libertarians–seem to forget is that inaction has consequences, too. What would have been the consequences of inaction with respect to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait? What would be the consequences of a world with no Superpower to enforce moderation? Actually, we don’t have to wonder - that was, essentially, the case in Europe for much of the past few centuries. And the past few centuries in European history were – perhaps not coincidentally – filled with quite a lot of war. Without a moderating Authority – read: Superpower – as enforcer of last resort, international relations can quickly become Lord of the Flies.

Here's the initial portion of Ghertner's response, showing how Henke's reasoning can be applied to forms of intervention that no libertarian would ever justify:

What would be the consequences of a United States with no strong federal government to regulate the market? Actually, we dont have to wonder - that was, essentially, the case in our country for much of the 19th century, until FDR did away with the largely unfettered free market. And the 19th century in American history was – perhaps not coincidentally – filled with quite a lot of market abuses. Without a moderating Authority – read: Superpower – as enforcer of last resort, economic relations can quickly become Lord of the Flies.

You can read the rest of the post by clicking here.