[Demidog]

perhaps on the lack of proportion between mugging and war.

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.

[annalex]

The government is responsible for bringing the attackers to justice regardless of national jurisdiction. If the national government (e.g. French, when I've been mugged in Paris) won't do what is expected of it, then our government needs to weigh the need to ensure justice through retaliation against the possibility of an escalated conflict. For trivial offenses suchas muggings in Paris it won't do it, and for serious offenses, such as nationalization of American property, it should at least consider retaliation.

You say that Perot's actions were justified and elsewhere you supported (as I do) the use of letters of marque and reprisal to retaliate. But you say that Carter's action wasn't justified; why? If it is proper for the government to subcontract its warmaking role to private parties, then it is equally proper to just use the regular military.

In some scenarios that we discussed, real and imaginary, a foreign government failed to rectify, or retaliate for, a violation of an American's natural right. In others, a foreign government was itself an offender. So, in all these cases, it is the foreign government that escalates the conflict to an inter-governmental level. For example, Exxon can buy its own fencing and hire bodyguards, but if a national government passes a "law" by which it expropriates Exxon, then Exxon can't provide justice for itself and its relaince on our government is proper.

You may have to look for a political label. Libertarianism opposes initiation of force. Sounds familiar? Libertarianism then allows defensive and retaliatory force.

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.

Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.

Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force.

Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy."

Libertarianism then believe that

[...] The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force.

(all quotes are from Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy

One major criticism of libertarianism comes from communitarians. Communitarians believe that communities, first of all, nations, have special rights. Libertarians often ignore things like national culture or sovereignty. For a debate on that, see Pursuit of Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism

Many of your statements on this thread, regarding in particular your concern for national borders, is distinctly communitarian, while your general dislike of American profit-seeking abroad is often seen on the left.