Libertarianism and Trump’s Venezuela intervention

Libertarianism is all about the freedom of individuals from coercion, based on JS Mill's harm principle: 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'

Within a country there is no confusion – reductions in tax and increases in liberty are supported, increases in tax and reductions in liberty are opposed.

But when it involves matters outside the country, libertarians often make it complicated. How is libertarianism affected by national borders? Can it apply to relationships between sovereign states? To what extent should libertarians oppose coercion in other countries?

Trump's intervention in Venezuela has not only prompted many on the left to denounce him, but quite a few libertarians as well. The left's position is easy to understand – a socialist was removed from power, by their arch enemy Trump.

The libertarian opposition comes from a completely different position. I believe it is similarly incorrect but, since I also describe myself as libertarian, I feel obliged to explain my reasoning.

American politics has been significantly influenced by the inaugural address of US President Thomas Jefferson in 1801, who declared that the US should consider its external military alliances to be temporary arrangements of convenience to be abandoned or reversed according to the national interest. Citing the Farewell Address of George Washington as his inspiration, Jefferson described the doctrine as "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."

Known as the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, this thinking dominated US foreign policy right up to the Second World War. And although America now has long term alliances with many countries, including Australia, the doctrine remains influential in American political circles.

That is especially true of American libertarians and, consequently, some libertarian Australians. In their view, a country should take little interest in squabbles beyond the country's borders unless there is a clear threat to its ability to engage in trade and commerce. They only endorse the use of force to end coercion if it occurs within their own country's boundaries; not when it occurs outside them. They are even reluctant to criticise or condemn outside coercion, and reject non-violent options such as sanctions.

This assigns great significance to national boundaries, a concept that assigns people to groups based on location. However, boundaries are collectivist and have no inherent virtue; indeed many, including America's, are an outcome of expediency, wars, and political deals. They do not deserve such significance.

It also takes no account of values. While blood and treasure must always be expended cautiously, assigning priority to geographic boundaries has potentially quite peculiar outcomes.

If there was substantial coercion occurring within Australia, Australian libertarians would agree it must be resisted. Moreover, if it was occurring in Tasmania, nobody would claim that taxpayers in New South Wales should not contribute to that resistance.

If the same coercion was occurring in Papua New Guinea or New Zealand, on the other hand, plenty would argue that it was not Australia's concern. They would claim it is not moral to spend either the blood or treasure of Australians to stop it.