Where Libertarians Go Wrong in Foreign Policy

Where Libertarians Go Wrong in Foreign Policy
[06-08-2015 23:49:15]
José Azel
Investigador, Universidad de Miami

(www.miscelaneasdecuba.net) Classical liberalism is the tradition of
ethical, political, legal, and economic thought that centers on
individual liberties. For libertarians, individual freedoms are
dominant. This view is in sharp contrast with all forms of collectivism
where the collective is considered the organizing principle for policy
making, and group rights trump individual rights.
With respect to individual rights, the American political taxonomy of
liberals and conservatives is incongruous, and we often find ourselves
advocating for greater personal freedoms while concurrently supporting a
larger role for government. Republicans advocate for less government
involvement in economic matters, but often argue for more government
control on social topics. Democrats want the government out of our
private lives (as it should be), but then seek extensive government
regulations on businesses. Libertarians notice this philosophical
inconsistency and point out that, by definition, an expanded government
entails diminished liberties.

It gets even more confusing because political sobriquets are flawed
shorthand expressions of philosophical views, and these conceptual
imperfections are magnified in the realm of foreign policy. Take, for
example, the clash between Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul
regarding U.S. economic sanctions towards Cuba. Senator Rubio, a
conservative Cuban-American, supports the economic sanctions whereas
Senator Paul, a philosophical libertarian, opposes the embargo sanctions.

Both Senators are committed anticommunists and would like nothing more
than to see an end to the oppressive Castro regime. Senator Rubio sees
the embargo as a useful foreign policy tool, whereas Senator Paul abhors
it as a restriction on the individual freedoms of Americans to do
business as they please. Both Senators make powerful, eloquent arguments
for their respective positions.

However, Senator Paul, without realizing it, betrays his own beliefs.
Classical liberalism is the philosophy of freedom, but being a
libertarian means caring about freedom for all peoples, not just Americans.

Senator Paul is right to defend the freedom of American businesses to do
business unimpeded by government, yet classical liberalism is a
universalist philosophy concerned with freedom everywhere not just with
the freedoms of groups in ones own community. In defending exclusively
the freedom of American businesses, the Senator inadvertently creates a
chauvinistic, group-specific class and steps into collectivism.
Libertarianism is about individual rights, not group or regional rights.
Classical liberals are always suspicious of group rights.

It may be in the commercial interest of American businesses to do
business with the Cuban government, but interests are not the same as
rights. In fact, interests may be opposed to rights, a point that James
Madison makes brilliantly in his definition of "factions" in Federalist
No. 10. Thus, the interest of American businesses must be weighted
against the rights of the Cuban people. Nonetheless, to Senator Paul's
point, the presumption must always be for liberty, and interference with
the freedom of American business must be justified.

And to Senator Rubio's point, if libertarianism must care about freedom
for all peoples, then the lack of liberty suffered by the Cuban people
must be factored into Senator Paul's calculus. Yes, the embargo
restricts the freedoms of a small number of American companies that may
be willing to venture into the high-risk, low-returns Cuban market.

But it is a market where American companies will be required, under
Cuban law, to participate in an Orwellian staffing process of
enslavement under which the Cuban state retains approximately 92% of an
employee's salary in violation of international labor protocols.
American companies must also agree to become minority partners with the
Cuban military who will be the controlling shareholder.

That is, American companies must partner with the same military that
enforces the comprehensive depravation of personal freedoms for eleven
million individuals in Cuba. This is an ethical dilemma that should not
be callously dismissed with platitudinous statements praising the
virtues of trade.

Here is where libertarians must make a choice between defending the
group-specific regionalist interest of American businesses -in clear
contradiction of libertarian principles- or standing for the
universalist values of individual freedom that transcend national borders.

This values conundrum often positions classical liberalism as an odd
political philosophy when articulating foreign affairs policy. It need
not be. The default libertarian position should always be to side with
the liberty of individual human beings everywhere.

Source: Where Libertarians Go Wrong in Foreign Policy - Misceláneas de
Cuba -
http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/Article/Index/55c3d65b3a682e120c43d2df#.VcR-Myaqqko