But it looked like I was commenting on her position in intervention rather than her position on altruism.
I take it, you agree with Rand that it's the national interest, not altruism, that is determinative for the just invasion.
Not quite. It's determinative for the prudent invasion. If it were in our national interest to kill everyone in England, for example, it would still be unjust. It would also be unjust if it were our interest to kill everyone in Arabia.
I don't share Rand's view of altruism, since I'm a Christian, but I do agree with her that's it's a bad, and even immoral, basis for public policy. I don't hold the view on altruism many objectivists attribute to Christians, either. It's meritorious, but not obligatory. It is not meritorious, however, if the costs aren't born exclusively by the person or persons being altruistic, which is why the government shouldn't act altruistically.
Exactly. An invasion is just if the country being invaded has a government that usurps power. It is always a war on the government and not on the population. Once we know that the invasion is just, the question becomes, is it prudent? The national interest (of the country contemplating invasion) is determinative for that.
Although I don't subscribe to objecticist ethics either, I wholly agree with Rand's condemnation of "altruist" foreign policy. That is because a foreign policy is executed by the government on behalf of the entire nation. If the policy disregards national interest, then the government executing it abuses its mandate. Whether the reason to disregard the national interest is altruism doesn't exhonerate it, because the government then would act on behalf of foreigners at the expense of the citizens. Of course, in many cases altruist policy is also in the national interest (such as, many would agree, was the Marshall Plan), and then Rand should have no objection to it.
To reduce it to individuals, as a Christian I find myself motivated by an altruistic urge to do charity; however, if I convert my charitable impulse into an act of coercing others to do charitable acts, there is no charity in it for anyone. Thus Randian objection to altruism doesn't contradict Christian ethics.
And, as usual, it is followed by fascinating discussion.
agrandis....ping! (I think you'll find it worth the time. Any thoughts?) :-)