Fractionals

Not that I'd mind if Hugo and/or Fidel choked on a chicken bone...

But were you planning on shoving it in there yourself?

Heh. If the CIA failed already...

Bah. Fidel is one thing, but if Chavez was elected then there's no real difference from killing him or, say, Paul Martin.

That statement not only assumes that democracy has intrinsic virtue, but also that democracy's virtue overwhelms all possible vice. Right.

No, your interpretation of my statement assumes all that.

Whether or not one thinks democracy is intrinsically a good thing (and err, I never have) has nothing to do with believing that it would be wrong to go in and kill the legitimately chosen leader of a sovreign nation.

The people of his country don't (on the whole) want him gone - from whither comes our right to overrule them, whether we agree or not?

I'm really confused as to where I'm arguing "democracy's virtue overwhelms all possible vice". If Cubans wanted to keep Castro around, dictator or no, I'd say keep out of that too. In fact, I still say keep out of that; but at least in that case I can see the grounds where you'd argue otherwise.

I was really just trying to point out that the statement "if Chavez was elected then there's no real difference from killing him or, say, Paul Martin" is only true under certain (false) assumptions. That is all. I wasn't trying to make any kind of political point.

Going into a sovereign nation and assinating their legitmate leader because you do not like what he stands for is wrong, whether it's Paul Martin or Chavez. I have no idea what your first post would have to do with this idea.

You use the word "legitimate" as if it were synonymous with "democratic" or "elected". That is the idea to which I object.

I believe that murder is wrong, and I believe that political assassination is murder, but I do not believe there is any intrinsic moral difference between a democratically elected leader and a military dictator, per se.

In other words, you harshly discriminate between Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez on grounds that I find morally irrelevant. Does that make sense? I think that's about as clear as I can be.

You use the word "legitimate" as if it were synonymous with "democratic" or "elected".

Not at all. I think an elected leader is one form of a legitimate leader. But this isn't a "what forms of leader are legitimate" issue, it's a autonomy issue. I believe it is wrong for countries to tell other countries what leaders they should have, generally speaking, and that certainly covers going in to interfere with those leaders. I can't imagine many libertarians are interventionists.

Where we disagree, as you kind of say, is that I do think there are some governments or leaders or countries that justify intervention, I don't imagine you do.

Actually, libertarianism both is and is not interventionist, depending on your point of view.

On the one hand, a minarchist libertarian government would never participate in any kind of offensive war or political action, because that would contrary to the principle of minarchy (government is best which governs least). And of course there is no such thing as an anarchist libertarian government, so that side is covered automatically.

On the other hand, a well-founded and properly conducted military intervention by private forces against a foreign power would not run afoul any libertarian laws (minarchist or anarchist), and such forces could be openly headquartered in a libertarian nation without fear of domestic trouble. In fact, Ayn Rand herself was extremely hawkish during the cold war, and her followers are likewise today.

My personal take on this issue is that since it is almost impossible to carry out "a well-founded and properly conducted military intervention" I don't think anyone should even try.