After the "student revolution" in Iran, our embassy was taken hostage, and EDS (Ross Perots' company) employees were taken hostage. Our government responded by sending the helicopters on an ill-fated raid, and Perot responded by successfully freeing his men by force. When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them. All these were justified instances of application of force by our government to protect our citizens abroad. Or do you disagree?
According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere. In the civilized world, our government can delegate that job to other national governments. If a national government fails to protect our citizens, our government is justified in responding; the only remaining question is the degree and manner of response.
Yes. It's a basic common law principle. If you come at me with your fists, I may not respond with a gun. (In general)
I agree that it would be ridiculous to retaliate with war for my getting mugged in Paris; but it would be morally justified for our government to retaliate in a commensurate way if the French government for some reason fails to do so.
Again. Not so. The reason being twofold. One, your government is not responsible for you. It is not responsible for keeping you safe. It is only responsible for bringing your attacker to justice. And it can only do this within it's territorial jurisdiction. Two, the act of a government sanctioned retaliation which is not co-operative with the other government in question, is an act of war and thus puts all Americans at risk of an escalated war with the country in question.
When our government determines that such protection cannot be extended to a particular country, it issues a warning that every American citizen traveling to that country does so on his own risk.
This is true always. Any other belief is sheer folly. And these warnings are not about whether or not the U.S. can extend protection they are about our diplomatic relations with these countries. If relations have deteriorated and the government there is non-responsive, the warnings are issued.
After the "student revolution" in Iran, our embassy was taken hostage, and EDS (Ross Perots' company) employees were taken hostage. Our government responded by sending the helicopters on an ill-fated raid, and Perot responded by successfully freeing his men by force.
Perot's actions were justified. Carter's were not.
When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them.
And this was not a proper use of the military. The military is authorized to protect us from an invasion. It is not the citizen's bodyguard abroad.
According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere.
According to what brand of libertarianism? Can you please provide a cite for this? Because if that's really libertarianism, I need to find myself a new label. Under the libertarianism I have read about and studied, individuals are responsible for themselves and only agree to government for a few things one of which is national defense.
You are not entitled to anything that you aren't willing to provide for yourself. If you hand over your responsibility to some government agency then you have made a bad choice.