In past LP conventions where I had attended as a delegate, the abortion issue was as contentious there as it was and is outside of libertarian circles.
I wouldn’t categorize libertarians as isolationist given that free trade is typically a cornerstone issue. Non-interventionist would be a more appropriate description.
I personnally believe that the LP is wrong with their non-interventionist stance. There is this idea that trade agreements between states are somehow adequate guarantees against aggression since neither would wish to jeopardize the benefits received from trade. This to me, seems naive.
States are run by people – sometimes many, other times just a few. There are just way too many examples of people who risked reputation, family, or wealth on ventures that have us saying “what were they thinking?”
Then you throw in un-governed areas or places where there is only local control such as Somalia (can you really call it a country?), western Pakistan…clearly these areas cannot be ignored (ala Clinton). The LP stance here again, appears incredibly naive and inadequate.
