To invade, or not to invade: Blogger Brink Lindsey writes yesterday about whether the Libertarian non-interventionist philosophy is really such a good idea. His basic argument, shown through some hypotheticals, boils down to that if your end is more freedom, then the means of invading, kicking out the warlords, and replacing them with a market economy, are justified. It may be a bit too simple as he lays it out, but I, for one, am convinced that neighboring countries (and even those farther away) have a duty (if not a moral imperative) to promote freedom and negate oppression in those countries around them. This argument can easily fall apart unless you are able to deal in moral absolutes (i.e. any dictator can act under the false pretense that he is invading Kuwait to "liberate" its people), and this is not to say that there won't always be cynics who second-guess the real reasons for crossing your neighbor's borders. I also realize that the cold realities of realpolitik allow for invasion only upon the perception of a threat or when strategic oil reserves get whacked. Nonetheless, I admire idealism and those who further its aim.