It’s no secret that I have ideological disagreements with the gang at Reason magazine. There was once a time when conservatives spent a lot of time and energy engaging libertarian arguments. Today, there are very few of us (off the top of my head, I can only think of Ramesh Ponnuru, Francis Fukuyama, David Frum and myself, though I’m sure there are many more of us). But, anyway, I’ve got to say I really enjoyed their symposium on “Libertarian Foreign Policy” in the current (i.e. not yet posted) issue of Reason–the quotation marks, by the way, are necessary because very often “Libertarian foreign policy” is a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, my former colleague and close friend Ronald Bailey sets up the whole debate by arguing that a libertarian foreign policy should actively support freedom around the globe. In fact, Ron argues for the revival of the Reagan Doctrine which called for US support of pro-freedom insurgents in tyrannical states around the globe. Ron makes several points–some of which have popped up in my own writing. First, he notes that freedom and democracy (different things) have come at the point of a gun several times in the past. Ron mentions Europe in general and Japan and Germany in particular. He doesn’t mention the United States itself because it’s not directly relevant to his point. But since there are many libertarians who simultaneously believe violence doesn’t solve anything and that the American Revolution was a triumph for human liberty, it’s worth pointing out that the former produced the latter.

Ron also notes that supporting freedom abroad is not at all inconsistent with libertarian (or conservative) principles. Smashing corrupt and threatening regimes abroad is no more inconsistent with the principles of freedom than chasing down burglars and arsonists is inconsistent with good home ownership.

But Ron’s most important point is that states aren’t people. “Social engineering” with States may be good or bad, advisable or folly, but it’s not the same thing as engineering the crooked timber of humanity. Two of Ron’s respondents seem to muddle this point, saying Ron is both utopian and imperialistic. This is a surprising misreading on both counts. First, in Ron’s (and regarding Iraq, National Review’s) formulation, smashing corrupt, dangerous and totalitarian regimes is first and foremost an argument based in self-interest. We should do it because it will make us safer.

Second, to my knowledge nobody on the Right who advocates liberating oppressed peoples is a “utopian.” Utopianism believes in the perfectability of life and human nature. Sir Thomas More came up with the word “utopia” by marrying (and cut me some slack here if I mangle a detail or two, as I’m working without any of my books or access to the web) to Greek words to form a neologism for “no place.” More contrasted this with eutopia which means the “good place.” Good places are possible, perfect places are impossible–short of heaven. Making societies safe for the rule of law and, eventually, democracy is an eutopian effort which recognizes that men are imperfect, but given the right circumstances, they can live decent lives in decent places–which was just the sort of thing the founding fathers had in mind here in America.