Nathan Key

It's an old meme by now, but I finally got around to watching Hotel Rwanda over the weekend. As a result of seeing this film, I found myself questioning the doctrine of non-interventionism that I hold to so dearly.

I lean libertarian, of course, and as such it's important to remind you that libertarians view interventionism as one of the worst evils that a nation can perpetuate. Getting entangled in the affairs of another nation was strictly forbidden by the Founding Fathers and libertarians adhere to a strict interpretation of their intentions and the Constitution. This means that we rarely find that it's a good idea to command or coerce another nation according to our own desires.

At the same time, however, there is a strict libertarian cause to protect the life, liberty, and property of all citizens. And indeed, this cause should probably be enacted toward all persons regardless of national status. For if we hold that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," we cannot in good conscience restrict those rights only to those living within the borders of our own country.

So, when another country perpetuates acts of genocide, our belief in the right to LIFE conflicts with the belief that we should not intervene with another country's right to govern. What to do, what to do?

In cases such as genocide, I'm beginning to be swayed toward the argument that that LIFE wins no matter what. For we cannot maintain the rights of liberty and property if we fail to protect life in the first place.

But, I'm still thinking about it... after all, this could be used to rationalize the invasion of any number of countries in the world- simply because they aren't protecting their citizens the way we would.

Leave a Reply