Guess we simply disagree on the definition of "non-intervention" then. Because since before we became a nation we were engaging in an activist foreign policy, including westward expansion. That's patently non-libertarian in my opinion.Your example of native tribes is a better example in that we could be considered the aggressor, but many will argue it was somewhat a policy of self preservation (albeit a weak one)
Well I guess you could make the case that the Founding Fathers were "non-interventionists" if you also take into account the possibility that they were hypocrites. Same way they believed that "all men were created equal," but some weren't equal enough to warrant being freed from slavery.Ron Paul is correct, and nobody of any significance really argues it. Nonintervention was absolutely the overriding philosophy in our early years, we simply didn’t view Indian tribes as states holding any form of sovereignty.