One philosophical dilemma within Libertarianism, that is not raised much in the contemporary Libertarian establishment, but which exists in the realm of political science, is how 'negative rights' should be applied when not thinking of the domestic sphere where 'minimal laws and mandates' have an effect on the citizen's relationship as a private participator with the government. That all individuals should be given the same freedom from government regulation regardless of their selves does not mean that the government isn't comprised of equally free individuals who do not relate solely to their own. This breaks into two orientations of both equally extroverted stances to what this sphere of liberation for them precludes;

Either, that freedom of pursuit for those given decision making power is seen as the same political egalitarianism that the nation's own libertarian stance allots for the civilians of the nation, being themselves civilians in pursuit of a station. Can act in accord to their judgment as appointed their office & as so long as it does not effect the sphere of the people in the nation, to take national initiative in foreign affairs, such as military interventionism toward non-libertarian nations, by the voluntary members of the armed forces, and not using any draft. This stance sees competition between all entities without mutually agreed mandates, deregulation, as both the economic & social purpose behind Libertarianism.

Or rather, in allowing a free hand to foreign nations to act as they will, no matter how anti-libertarian, and believing that it is a libertarian right of egalitarian political opportunity to give other systems freedom from any coercion on their behalf. Creating a right to the scope of one's own domestic ideals as already pertaining to others in a preventative way that disallows the government from partaking of any private initiative. This stance takes Libertarianism as being the spirit of anti-interventionism.