Protracted conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Editor's Note: With a growing momentum in American domestic affairs, Libertarianism is a political philosophy that must be taken seriously. How would a Libertarian foreign policy differ from the traditional approach taken by both U. S. major political parties? The author of this commentary, who is not a Libertarian, attempts to provide an answer. -Ed.

Protracted conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new military engagement in Libya, bankers in China, and jihadists in Pakistan--now, more than ever, appears to be the opportunity for a new approach to foreign policy, one based on the principles of libertarianism as espoused by its most prominent national leaders, Texas Representative Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul, the new senator from Kentucky.

Yet despite the growing influence of libertarian ideas domestically, it is difficult to locate even the vague contours of what a libertarian-based foreign policy would mean for the nation, or how it would operate in practice.

Recent statements on the Middle East and Libya by the Pauls, father and son, offer a revealing glimpse into the libertarian mindset - its appeal, paradoxes, and limitations -and why libertarians have such difficulty in the foreign policy arena.

Libertarian Rise

Libertarianism in various forms has been part of America's DNA since the nation's founding ("Don't Tread On Me"). However, we can probably date its present incarnation to two texts: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (1957) and Austrian economist Fredrick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944). Most people may not be familiar with Hayek, but Atlas Shrugged and Rand's earlier book, The Fountainhead, have been a rite of passage for generations of high school and college students.

The libertarian creed is perhaps its most powerful attraction: "Each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others," according to David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute. Translated into political terms, this means governments are generally freedom's foes, not its protectors. Except for handling minimalist national security, police, and legal requirements, government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

For all its emphasis on the core American values of small government and individual liberty, however, it would be fair to say that libertarianism has long been considered "the crazy uncle of American politics," as Christopher Beam wrote in New York magazine.

No longer. Libertarianism may not be mainstream, but it has achieved unprecedented prominence and influence in recent years. Along with Rand Paul's election to the Senate last fall, his father won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2011 for the second year in a row. On April 26, Ron Paul announced formation of an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run in 2012. Although libertarianism is by no means synonymous with the Tea Party, Walter Russell Mead, writing in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs, points out that the "Paulites" constitute an important wing of this powerful national movement.

Rand Paul and Libva

On March 29, Senator Rand Paul spoke on the subject of the No Fly Zone over Libya. Earlier, Representative Ron Paul addressed U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Of the two statements, Rand Paul's was the more conventional, questioning the decision to impose a No Fly Zone and complaining that only Congress can declare war. Both assertions echo similar views from both Republicans and Democrats and contributed no fresh ideas to the debate.

We are not the world's policeman, as Rand reminded us. That is easy to state, easy to agree to. Still, what would be the consequences of standing by and watching the systematic slaughter of the residents of Benghazi? Is it really self evident, with much of the Arab world seized by democratic revolutions, that we have no national interests in...