U.S. economic and military assistance to foreign countries (“foreign aid”) is generally unpopular with the electorate, but particularly distasteful to libertarians, as it is seen to violate non-interventionism. Thus, the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform states:
Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid (my emphasis).
While the logic of this stance is superficially compelling, I do not believe it can justify a categorical ban on foreign aid.
There are a variety of reasons why libertarians almost universally condemn such assistance. Perhaps the most obvious is that it is the product of coercion. That is, the money disbursed to foreign governments was not contributed by willing donors, but taken by force from the taxpayers. If individual Americans wish to support (say) Egypt, Israel or Pakistan, let them write checks from their own accounts, according to this argument.
Moreover, given the generally ineptitude of our policymakers, aid will not be distributed wisely. It will likely end up in Swiss bank accounts or be used to enrich the cronies of the recipients and for other dubious purposes.
However, while persuasive on their own terms, these arguments miss the big picture. The overriding issue is whether foreign aid can, in principle, be a tool for advancing morally legitimate American interests, and I believe it can. From the perspective of minimal state libertarianism, one of the central government’s essential functions is to protect the rights of its citizens against predation by hostile nations, including the deterrence of and defense against military aggression, and the vindication of our right to engage in travel and trade with citizens of other nations on a consensual basis. I see no reason why we should rigidly reject international assistance as a means of inducing foreign powers to respect these rights.
Foreign aid is in many ways comparable to making campaign contributions to our politicians, in that it attempts to trade money for influence. Of course, from the libertarian perspective it is a tragedy that we live in a polity where the state is so powerful that citizens and groups must resort to this tactic, but that’s the way it is. Under such circumstances, it seems permissible for constituencies to make political contributions in order to defend their rights.
For example, I see nothing amiss in parents, interested citizens, and private schools banding together to fund politicians who will promote school choice or for Uber and Lyft to do the same in order to promote a regulatory scheme that does not arbitrarily favor the taxi industry. In short, such contributions are morally defensible if made to promote a just cause, and the same can be said about foreign aid.
Using Pakistan as an example, while there is no doubt that its government is horribly corrupt and no champion of individual rights, it possesses many dozens of nuclear weapons, and has fought three wars with its neighbor India, another nuclear-armed state, since independence. A nuclear war between these two nations would have potentially catastrophic negative externalities for the rest of the world, including US citizens. Accordingly, if foreign aid can, even slightly, influence Pakistan’s leaders to avoid aggressive actions that might provoke India, it would be money well spent.
A similar argument could be made in favor of assistance to various Middle Eastern countries, in the hope of preventing a conflagration there. I note that the total amount of our foreign aid represents a tiny fraction of our overall defense budget.
It is entirely possible that this largess will not advance US interests, but retard them. However, the same could well be said about our defense strategy at any given moment. And, while foreign aid is funded on a non-consensual basis, so is the procurement of aircraft carriers, fighter squadrons, tank battalions, etc. My point is that it is impossible to draw a principled distinction between the minimal state’s role in providing national security, and the supply of foreign aid. The latter is simply one available means of promoting the former.
I hope it is clear that nothing said here should be taken as an endorsement of our existing aid program, including its roster of recipients, the amounts given, the conditions attached, etc. The point here is, I think, a modest one, i.e. libertarian principles do not compel us to renounce all foreign aid without a careful cost/benefit analysis.
I recall perhaps Howard Bloom or Robert Green talking about this. I do not have their books with me, but I think one of them was of the opinion that foreign aid does not work well even when it is used to promote one’s own interests.
Thanks for bringing these writers to my attention. That comment may be true, and if so, would obviously require us to cease it. I would be interested in his reasoning. The Marshall Plan appears to have been a rather striking success. My only point is that we should make this decision on the basis of a careful cost/benefit analysis, rather than an ideological presupposition.
Good point about the Marshal Plan. But that was trying to help people rebuild. A lot of foreign aid has nothing to do with rebuilding anything.
Agreed. Foreign aid is all about buying influence. In the case of the Marshall Plan, it seemed to work, and I would assert that the influence exerted was benign. Sometimes, it is a complete waste of money or the influence exerted is malignant. Should we have an inflexible policy against foreign aid? I am not sure that we can safely answer “yes.”