An Article to the Interventionist Libertarians

I just heard on the Unbiased America stream a few minutes ago that a more pragmatic foreign policy would be slightly interventionist. This is not the first time I have heard or seen that charge against non-interventionism; that it is not pragmatic. This charge is extremely unfair. Furthermore, when somebody says that it is not pragmatic what they are implicitly asserting is that they are purposefully not consistent in their beliefs.

Let’s define pragmatic. “Pragmatic” is “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.”

The question “Is a slightly interventionist foreign policy more pragmatic than a non-interventionist foreign policy” needs an answer.

It is important to point out that it is not self-evident that it is more pragmatic, psychologically or logically. Many take for granted that it is obvious that a slightly interventionist foreign policy since it is a “case-by-case” position and not consistently anti-interventionist.

Claiming a slightly interventionist foreign policy is more pragmatic is identical to claiming that a slightly interventionist economic policy is more pragmatic. Both create results that are contradictory to their stated goals. Interventionism in foreign policy, supposedly, brings freedom to other countries and makes us more safe. It instead brings the exact opposite, it causes chaos and political instability that allows even more horrible rulers to come to power, and it makes the populace hate the attacking country more.

Those who believe in a slightly interventionist policy also say that we only need to intervene in very specific cases, but they fail to realize two points.

1) It is interventionism, whether in economic or foreign policy, that almost always create the situations they wish to involve themselves.

2) Interventionism will create even more issues and precipitate another crisis which will make people call for more interventionism.

Interventionism is self-defeating.

Moreover, it is not clear that we should value pragmatism over theoretical considerations, and it is not clear that theory does not line up with what is realistic.

Consider this hypothetical: Some action is unethical, and we can somehow objectively show that it is more practical and realistic than the ethical alternative. It is not obvious one could act unethically and justify it; in fact, the action being unethical means that we cannot justify taking the action. So, if we care about justice, then we would not do the practical alternative.

This is analogous to the foreign policy debate. Non-interventionism is the consistent and ethical alternative, and interventionism is not. A person can only justify non-interventionism, and to claim that interventionism is justifiable would land a person in a contradiction on some grounds.

Additionally, it is not obvious that non-interventionism doesn’t deal with reality. It does not deal with an ideal world; it does deal with real world action. It is not idealistic. Not only does non-interventionism not defeat its own purpose, it also fulfills its purpose: to not mess with others’ issues.

If any position is practical it is the one that does not create outcomes contradictory to its purpose: non-interventionism. Those who hang on to the slightly interventionist foreign policy are inconsistent; they are contradictory.