Perhaps as a remnant of indoctrination, I will attempt to justify US military intervention (and then to refute it):
(also, it might save you some adrenaline if you read the very last paragraph of this post first)
Under the current system of statism, we run under the idea of the social contract. Thus, some small group of men hundreds of years ago agreed on some document and we are bound to it today (ignore the quality of the social contract theory itself) through the threat of force. Anyway. We have some social contract. But it never defined the extent of the power of the government. Since it has expanded from that small group of men hundreds of years ago, what stops it from expanding to anything it wishes? Hence, the government could really claim control over anything it wills. Assuming a well-meaning government (whatever that means), it wants to merely mete out justice.
Thus, military intervention can be framed as the US government going through legal proceedings against another country (say Iran) and then rendering out the punishment/righting of violations of rights.
From this, we see rights violations in Iran. We use democracy and congressional debate as the court system and then the army as its police force.
The general idea: the only thing which prevents the government form extending its influence is other countries. Yet we can actually see all countries as extending everywhere. The only thing which prevents this from being actually seen as such is the threat of force from one against another. So all the US does in intervening in Iran is acting to stop rights violations (albeit in an impractical manner which causes deaths).
Hypothetically, a private court + police under AnCap could be doing the same thing (besides the forceful collection of taxes for its operations, but I guess it could do that too, since there can never be a universal objective agent preventing NAP violations (besides God, who doesn’t appear to do so)).
To reject this intervention, I thus propose the following:
- The justice + police force we frame intervention to be is immoral because of forceful collection of taxes to supply it
- The justice is one-sided as the accused was not involved in the discussion (though in AnCap I have not heard about there being a natural right to habeas corpus)
Does any of this make sense? I do not currently endorse these views, I’m just seeing where this goes. I suppose I’m assuming statism and then trying to justify interventionism within the well-intentioned state. This is just a mental exercise.