Libertarian interventionism means advocating intervention (usually military) for the purposes of defeating especially statist, totalitarian, and violent governments around the world. I.E. for giving people more freedom. It’s similar to humanitarian intervention, which is the same for alleviating any mass human tragedy (e.g. using the US military to aid in Haiti relief).

I don’t think it works, on net, when the intervention means state intervention (due to the inefficient, corrupting, and ideological nature of the state). In fact, I think statist interventionism as rule counterproductive. I’m not in favor of it for that reason. When it comes to the state, I am usually a pragmatic non-interventionist (not a moral one). I generally agree, in principle, with the morality of libertarian and humanitarian intervention.

Most leftist (and some libertarian) anti-interventionism is based on something like a notion that we (as tainted neoliberals, neocons, Americans, Westerners, capitalists, whatever) have “no right to interfere in the affairs of other nations” as if the “rights” of foreign nation-states trumped the rights of foreign people.

I find this absurdly immoral and so does Hitchens. I would be very much in favor of, say, libertarian activists organizing and fighting (or funding the fight) against especially statist regimes overseas (e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Burma, Zimbabwe).

I am not anti-intervention, I am anti-state.