Interesting post. To a libertarian, such an argument concerning economic embargoes will probably be seen as an "ends justify the means" mistake - one by which restricting rights domestically is necessary to promote the rights of foreign others.
The argument is no such thing, of course. My claim is not that the ends justify the means but that a consistent and principled understanding of liberty requires that economic embargoes be a tool permitted to government for the self-defence of the citizens, just as outright warfare is a tool for the same.
Also, it is not an instance of restricting a right. What right could be said to be infringed? Aiding and abetting rights-infringers itself violates individual rights and there can be no right to violate the rights of others (because no contradictions can exist in nature; A = A).
The illogic of the libertarian response is evident.
Thank you for the comment.
Commenting by HaloScan
