There is a distinctively libertarian approach to war and peace. It has nothing to do with the analysis of oil reserves, weapon capability or troop movements. It is about the nature of the state and how both war and war preparedness relates to state power.

As a prelude to discussion...Libertarians are vulnerable to the same dichotomy as the general public accepts: namely, they tend to believe there are good governments and evil governments. Good governments -- read the U.S. -- promote liberty and have a collective right to defend themselves against the evil ones who promote tyranny. I do not accept that dichotomy. I think the primary purpose of the American state is not the defense of individual rights; the U.S. has the same purpose as every other government – the maintenance of territorial sovereignty. Americans may (or may not) enjoy more liberty than individuals in other nations but I do not credit the government for that liberty. Quite the opposite. Governments will expand as far as the people let it; we are seeing that dynamic playing out now across American society. The much-declared liberty of Americans comes from the people and its culture – the rugged individualism, the frontier spirit in which much of America was born and upon which de Tocqueville commented.

(NOTE: I believe a significant cause of America's slide into totalitarianism is its belief in democracy. If America truly is "of the people for the people", then class analysis is irrelevant. Looking at the economy/society and seeing privileged classes -- the politicians, those on Wall St., the courts, the banks, etc. -- makes no sense...if power rests in the people. Of course, it does not. And, so, belief in democracy has hobbled a desperately needed class analysis of American politics; if the people rule, then there is no need for a ruling class theory, without which modern politics makes no sense.)

And, so, what is the libertarian position...or, at least, my position...on national defense? First of all, I do not reject organized self-defense. I just want associations to be voluntary. Nor do I reject armed defense. If my area of the world were invaded, I would defend myself with weapons as well as other other defensive strategies (e.g. non-violent resistance, guerilla tactics) which I think would be the most effective defense possible. What I would not do is surrender my right to self-defense to any state, for example, by joining an 'army'. So the first intellectually step is to divorce my right to self-defense from any connection to the concept of national defense as we know it.

The key libertarian point is the relationship between war and the state -- that is, "war is the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne famously declared. The extension of that saying is "war is the death of individualism and of individual freedom." Thus, libertarianism, or classical liberalism, has a deep and rich history of anti-militarism, of anti-statism when it comes to war. That was a main reason philosophers like Herbert Spencer championed free trade.

In free trade, people of all nations act to realize their common economic interests by moving goods across borders; they realize governments are self-serving pains that interference in such movement and, so, act against the common good on a global level. The worst form of government interference is war and other militaristic policy.

With this line of reasoning, free trade movement in the 18th century Britain was wildly successful, giving rise to the likes of Adam Smith, as a reaction against what was known as "mercantilism". The idea behind mercantilism was that nations should be economically independent, particularly in terms of raw materials that may be needed for self-defense or prosperity. Mercantilism fueled Britain’s drive for colonies, like India, which could provide the raw materials that could be imported and, then, manufactured. By drawing raw materials into its political orbit, Britain could be independent of other nations in much the same way that America seeks to be independent by drawing oil-rich nations into its political orbit. Thus mercantilism is sometimes used as a synonym for colonialism.

By contrast, libertarians (then and now) declare “we do not want economic self-sufficiency as a nation any more than we want it as individuals." To be clear: it is obviously nice to be self-sufficient in terms of making enough money and being skilled enough to care for one's own needs. BUT it is a waste of time and effort to learn the skills and/or acquire the goods necessary to fill every one of your needs...e.g. shoe-making, growing corn, shingling a roof, producing electricity... A free market of exchange allows us to specialize in producing specific goods and, then, trading them for others we need or want. Globalizing this process enriches everyone. I mean, since when are more options a bad thing? Free trade also prevents war by making peace -- that is, inter-dependency and the safety of others to produce -- a profitable matter. The argument that America has to be independent in terms of oil harkens back to the tradition of mercantilism and colonialism.

A libertarianism that aims at global peace needs to promote discussion on several issues, including:

--an historical analysis of how war and war preparedness has been used to expand the state and, so, used against individual rights
--a moral analysis of the difference between individuals and the state that focuses on the question "why is it proper for the state or its agents to do what is NOT proper for individuals"...for example, to bomb a city?
--class analysis of who is benefited by current warfare
--a brutally honest look at U.S. policy. For example, however you view the U.S. government, on the issue of war, it regards its own citizens in the same way as any other government -- drafting, suspension of habeas corpus, internment camps, etc. Its actions are no different in kind than a Stalinist or Nazi regime.
--an analysis of the relationship between business, the state, and war. Free markets benefit the average person but the elite prosper more from aligning with government than they do from universal rights and the free movement of goods. For the elite, war is good for business.

War is the health of the state. To drive that message home, libertarians must have a theory of the state that is much, much more (or less) then the "good guys against the bad guys." We must have class analysis of the power elites who constitute government and the individuals who pay the price.