[Demidog]

You still fail to meet the objective.

France, for instance, is not a dictatorship.

And still, the reason Rand says that a dictatorship is an outlaw among nations has nothing to do with the maltreatment of any individual American corporation or citizen. (And for the sake of brevity we'll assume that the first person country is always the U.S.)

It has to do with the fact that everyone in that nation is a slave to the dictator. How smart is it to do business with such a nation? How much sympathy for that boneheaded capitalist do you think Rand would give?

Because it would be utter nonsense to attempt to do business in a dictatorship. And the suggestion that a nation can go to war for a grievance of a single citizen or corporation throws personal responsibility out on its ear (and libertarianism as well which bases much of its philosophy in the principles of personal responsibility).

I'd say the Founders were even more brilliant than Rand because they imagined a way to get at such rogues using letters of Marque. This limited the possibility of harming citizens or putting them at risk for war because they were voluntary actions of private individuals in retaliation for a harm caused by such a rogue nation. And I endorse that method wholeheartedly because it meets every objective in my estimation that is worthy for such a situation. Consequently the polar opposites of these 4 items are exactly why I oppose a national war effort for such grievances as you have laid out.

1. It costs the taxpayer no money and thus coerces no individual into supporting something he doesn't want to support.

2. It is not a state-executed action and thus limits risk to the nation issuing the letter while at the same time also benefits no one citizen more than another.

3. It can be directed at private individuals.

4. All those acting under letters of Marque are volunteers and because of their bond must act in accordance with the law (other than the fact that they have been issued a license to steal).

If you'll allow a digression, while I might agree with Rand in the quote you present, I think that rescuing the citizens of a dictatorship with a national action is like welfare both figuratively and literally. Those people need to rescue themselves. It's the only way for them to become strong.

[annalex]

Both Rand and I say that the decision to intervene should be based on two facts: (1) that the foreign government does not protect natural rights; and (2) it is in our national interest. If France fails to protect individual natural rights (e.g. by failing to punish the muggers) then, in a therotical extreme, it becomes a rogue nation meeting test 1. If protection of American citizen assets abroad becomes a form of corporate welfare, then our intervention would fail test 2. But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest. So, an equally good argument can be made for intervention in Arabistan just for the oil interests.

Now, of course, we have some retaliating to do for a clear-cut case of mass murder. Any form of military intervention in the countries involved (none has a representative form of government) would meet both Rand's tests.

I will post the article that puts the Rand's quotes in context in a munite. You may want to carry the discussion over there.