Replies

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.