Don Feder writing about Ron Paul:
"Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We should end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
"The libertarian position, generally, is to minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression (of that doctrine) in foreign affairs."
First, before I get to all the things I agree with Mr. Feder about I would point out that ending the "war on drugs" is not a position taken only by libertarian nut-jobs. No less a conservative luminary than William F Buckley, Jr. championed ending the drug war because the damage caused by the attempt to criminalize drugs is worse than the damage done by the drugs themselves.
Now on to the modern-day libertarians. Like Mr. Feder I was also once a card-carrying, dues paying member of the Libertarian Party. I still agree with a great deal of what they believe regarding the need to limit the federal government to its constitutionally mandated areas of responsibility.
However what caused me to part ways with the LP was their failure to understand that sometimes"providing for the common defense" requires more than sitting within our borders and waiting for an enemy to attack and only then springing to the defense.
Sometimes, whenever possible in fact, the best way to defend the nation is to deal with the problem before it actually lands troops on your shores (or hijacks planes and flies them into your buildings). For example if the US had maintained the kind of involvement with Europe at the end of WWI as it did at the end of WWII - forming a NATO-like defense alliance and integrating military operations and basing troops in Germany and other European nations it is very unlikely that there ever would have been a Third Reich or a Second World War.
I also parted company with the libertarians over the issue of Israel. As Ayn Rand observed when savages and civilized men fight you reflexively side with the civilized men. If you want an example of this consider the unfortunate nation of Zimbabwe. Had the civilized nations of the world supported the admittedly flawed, but still civilized government of Rhodesia when it was under assault by Marxist savages (savages because they were Marxist) enormous suffering could have been averted.
The fact is that Israel is a civilized nation surrounded by savages. The Muslim nations which are arrayed against Israel are a collection of totalitarian dictatorships and murderous Islamic theocracies who practice female genital mutilation, who allow fathers to murder their teenage daughters for bringing shame upon their families by "allowing" themselves to be raped and who stone to death anyone who attempts to renounce the evil seventh-century death cult in favor of any more enlightened humane (and less bat-shit crazy) religious philosophy. In a fight like that you don't remain neutral and you don't side with the bunch holding the signs which say "behead those who say that Islam beheads its enemies".
I also part company with the libertarians on the issue of our borders. The LP believes that people have a natural right to freedom of movement which means that it is nobody's business if the entire population of Mexico wants to move to the United States. That the new Mexican citizens would vote with the progressive left to bring about the kind of oppressive socialist welfare state that the libertarians claim to hate seems lost on them.
In fact a great deal seems lost on them. Libertarians think of themselves as rational secular people and they expect that all other people share that rational and secular outlook. The fact that the mullahs of Iran might really truly believe that the Hidden Imam will return and bring Islamic paradise to the world if they nuke Israel is lost on them.
It is also lost on them that in WWII the Soviet Union the British Commonwealth, the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich were locked in a death struggle and the British did not have the power to carry the day by themselves. Only the entrance of the United States into the war kept all of Asia from becoming a Japanese empire of blood and slavery and all of Europe and the Middle East from becoming a playground for either Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.
In the real world the libertarian ideal of free trade with all and alliances with none becomes Swiss banks receiving deposits of gold pulled from the teeth of Holocaust victims while Swiss chemical companies sell the components of Zyklon B to the SS.
But this is all lost on Ron Paul and his pod people. The reason that libertarians just don't "get it" is that not really a political movement but a utopian fantasy which attracts anti-American malcontents in exactly the same way that Marxism does. If you are one kind of chronically unhappy basement dweller you go take a public shit in Zuccotti Park to stick it to all the Wall St. fat cats, or if you're the other kind (the kind with more than a passing acquaintance with soap) you hack online polls in order to make Ron Paul look like the popular choice of the nation.
Either way you are simply expressing an irrational dissatisfaction with the nation which gave you a higher standard of living and more opportunity than any citizen, subject or resident of any nation in the history of the entire freaking planet.