Every once in a while the formerly libertarian Cato Institute lets loose with an analysis of the shape of libertarianism in the form of a voter profile: they did this some years back, you’ll recall,with a study (based on a Pew Center survey) that showed a considerable portion of the voters belonging to loose designation known as “enterprisers” — Americans who don’t want to regulate what people do with their bodies, or put in their bodies, and don’t cotton to government regulation of business, either. Now they’re back again, with a profile of “The Libertarian Voter” — but, in this era of war and “weapons of mass destruction” on every streetcorner, there is one curious omission, and I quote:

“W eâ€™re omitting foreign policy issues from this analysis because they are not easily categorized in a yes-no, less government-more government dichotomies.”

This is nonsense. Aside from the question of how does a “libertarian” fund an effort to “liberate” Iraq — and, indeed, the entire Middle East — the whole issue of an ostensible libertarian endorsing mass murder by the state would seem to run head on into the issue of the non-aggression axiom, which — unlike, say, school vouchers — is essential to libertarianism properly understood.

Of course, the folks over at Cato haven’t understood libertarianism for quite some time now — as we pointed out here, here, and here, for starters — and so this latest outrage is hardly surprising. It ought to give pause, though, that what many point to as the premier libertarian thinktank is not committed in principle to a noninterventionist foreign policy. The next time our libertarian readers consider where their donations are going to go, they might factor this into their decision. It’s interesting that the authors of this Cato study, David Boaz and David Kirby, aver that endorsing gay marriage “or civil unions” is a defining characteristic of the libertarian voter, while opposition to a foreign policy of unremitting aggression is not. Over in Cato-land, it’s all so very subjective ….