I for the most part agree with you here. But I'm just not sure I've thought this one over to the degree it needs. I understand the argument and appeal the position has to many middle and poorer classes of Americans that they shouldn't have to pay to protect rich Americans hobnobbing, vacationing, and even doing business abroad. The problem however, is where to draw the line.
We of course could argue that even where American citizens are invited, they travel at their own risk. We can also argue that merchant shipping companies should cover the costs of their own naval protection. Likewise, the same can be proposed for airlines. As far as American officials and employees at foreign embassies and councilets, we can just bring them home. Or require even them to travel and stay abroad at their own risk.
On the otherhand, do we want American companies engaged in fullblown private wars with foreign powers? If not, what kinds of limits would we put on private company self protective measures. Currently, though only selectively enforced, we have laws limiting the paramilitary security activities abroad of American citizens and large companies. Admittedly we could enforce more fully such laws and leave the entirety of our foreign relations to good will. But...
That would be a different world, with a different set of problems. For example, foreign based piracy of American ships, with official deniability of host nations, might very well eliminate our shipping industry completely. Problems we see as non-existant in the current world, may very well become the norm with a libertarian America. Now mind you, I am a radical libertarian. But I say a lot more work on the libertarian philosophy is needed before we acquire any kind of electoral presence in American government.
I agree with you that we need to end foreign entanglements and we should not be protecting foreign governments. I also agree that we should not be protecting Americans abroad. But on this latter one, I do not know where the line should be currently drawn, at least not at this time.
We're not talking about government envoys or embassies or the U.S. military, where it's invited. We're talking about private citizens. And piracy of American ships in territorial waters is different from piracy on the high seas or piracy in another country's waters.
Where America ought to draw the line about its obligations to protect private citizens is simple: America's federal government claims U.S. courts have legal jurisdiction there.
I think Americans leaving the U.S. ought to be forced to sign an acknowledgement that they are leaving American borders, realize that American laws don't apply where they're going, and understand that they are given a 80K a year tax break because they will not receive government services as a result. And American companies doing business outside the country ought to be allowed to do whatever they want, including bribe officials, topple governments and fight their own private wars--without the protection of the U.S. government's military umbrella. We think people ought to have the right to protect themselves in the U.S. No one gives up THAT fundamental right in or outside the country, yet, while the U.S. militarily protects some citizens and businesses, the U.S. takes those rights away from other citizens on their departure from American soil while doing nothing to protect them but issuing state department warnings, and harassing them on their return if they violate the international laws America abides by and few other countries do (see U.N., Oil for Food, see also Olympics, bribery, see additionally, International Business Practices, subheading kickbacks, graft, baksheesh, greaseman).
Better to say it and be honest about it than claim we practice what we preach and be caught out. Marcos, Batista, and other American-supported dictators have done far more damage to America's propagandizing about its hope for international democracy and freedom than Ho Chi Minh and Kim Jong Il ever did.