Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Libertarianism and Trump’s Venezuela intervention

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Wednesday, 28 January 2026


This is morally indefensible. Values are what distinguish libertarians from others, and they should not be jettisoned because of a collectivist concept.

By any libertarian standard, the removal of Maduro as President of Venezuela is to be applauded. He was a corrupt socialist dictator.

Whether it was a wise use of American taxpayers' money is yet to be seen; much depends on what comes next. Some prior examples of intervention have been sound in principle but not in execution; Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Guatemala for example.

Advertisement

On the other hand, Panama turned out well, and America and Australia's intervention in Korea saved the people in the south from suffering the same miserable fate as those in the north. And Australia's intervention in East Timor ensured the country would not suffer heavy-handed military rule by Indonesia, now apparent in West Papua.

None of this shows that intervention to overcome coercion is inherently wrong because it crosses a national border, or that it is inevitably a good idea. Rather, it shows that circumstances differ and judgement, caution and planning are vital.

What it means is, there is no libertarian justification for doing nothing about coercion merely because it is occurring in another country. Coercion should always be our concern, wherever it occurs.

It does not mean rushing military aid to those subject to coercion in other countries. There are many reasons why that might not be possible, practical, or advisable. Sometimes it might make sense; sometimes not. But it is perfectly legitimate for libertarians to consider whether there is anything they can do to overcome coercion wherever it occurs.

JS Mill was an advocate of utilitarianism in addition to classical liberalism. This philosophy, generally attributed to Jeremy Bentham, is often summarised as the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number. For libertarians, it should be understood to mean the greatest liberty for the greatest number. Mill would agree.

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published on Liberty Itch.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is a former Senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy