A daydream for life’s nightmare.

This line is wrong in every way that matters:

"The left’s position is easy to understand – a socialist was removed from power, by their arch enemy Trump."

That isn't explanation. It's mere caricature.

It starts by pretending the left supported Maduro. Large parts of the left have explicitly condemned Maduro as authoritarian, corrupt, and catastrophic for Venezuela. Opposition to Trump's intervention was never about loyalty to Maduro. That's a strawman, and it exists for one reason only: to avoid engaging with the real objections.

Those objections were never "our guy lost". They were about US-led regime change, and the simple fact that the US has an appalling record when it comes to foreign interventions: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya. You don't need to admire a dictator to oppose the method used to remove him. Conflating those two positions isn't a mistake. It's a dodge.

There's also a lazy bit of tribal shorthand doing work here. "Socialist" is treated as a team jersey rather than a contested label. Maduro isn't opposed because he's insufficiently socialist, nor defended because he's nominally one. Reducing a broad ideological spectrum to team colours might pass on talkback radio, but it isn't an argument.

And then there's the projection. Leyonhjelm accuses the left of tribal thinking while indulging in it himself. He assumes opposition to Trump must be driven by hostility to Trump, rather than by concerns over legality, precedent, civilian harm, executive overreach, or the routine, well-documented failure of foreign interventions.

Worst of all, the line undercuts his own libertarian case. If he actually wanted to persuade libertarians, he would grapple with the strongest counter-argument, not sidestep it:

Why should libertarians trust a powerful state to impose liberty abroad, given its incentives, its track record, and its insulation from the harm it causes? Instead, we get a cartoon left that can be dismissed with a sneer.

So no, the left's position isn't "easy to understand". It's just easy to misrepresent.

No need to read beyond that sentence. Save your time.

Yep.
This is up there with the biggest loads of garbage he's written.

A moral argument in support of liberal intervention...
But the argument in support of overcoming coercion - is one which employs coercion.
You quote JS Mill, but you've removed yourself from the entire harm factor.
Trump killed 100 people in that kidnapping on made up domestic charges.
You're essentially saying 'Its ok to do some harm if its for the greater good'.
The second you take that position, you've thrown the harm principle in the bin and now taken an 'end's justifies the means' mentality, and that's no different than the Bondi perpetrators.
You're attempting to justifying foreign interference, which destroys any concept of the people in question deciding anything for themselves, you're attempting to be kingmaker, at a lower cost to troop losses and destruction of the country than if you invaded.

I oppose sanctions and regime changes.
Sanctions are collective punishment against an entire nations citizenry, so they will blame and overthrow the government.
Regime changes are foreign interference, to benefit said foreign interests, nothing to do with whats best for the people.

And when you use sanctions and promote and encourage insurrection, you force the nations to become more repressive to prevent foreign attempts to destabilise them.

They willfully dump enough foreign currency to cause a selloff, profit on the short position rebuy the currency back at less cost, if the regime change is successful and they profit again when sanctions are lifted

Meanwhile you inflict untold misery on the foreign population, they're eating cats and dogs and the country is tearing itself apart, corruption increases with poverty and the West can buy off officials, and you already bought up things on the cheap during the sanctions in order tat they're well positioned with the lifting of sanctions.

You destroy a nation like cancer yourselves whilst proclaiming 'we're the good guys!', but it's not about helping the people there, if it was you wouldn't have inflicted such hardship upon them in the first place.

[Cont.]

Why don't you go kill your own pets for food David?
Kill it, butcher it then feed your wife and kids with it, and call it a good wholesome libertarian family meal, and then get back to me 'Mr. Harm principle'

Venezuela food shortages cause some to hunt dogs, cats, pigeons
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/18/venezuela-food-shortages-cause-some-hunt-dogs-cats-pigeons/84547888/

Google AI says you love cats David and have had several.
Tiffy, Ratty, Mia, Oliver (passed away now)

Go eat your own cats David.

You're full of it.