Ayn Rand died 22 years ago, but from the grave she weighs in on the war in Iraq. Her 41-year-old essay “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” outlines principles that are championed as easily in 2004 as they were in 1963. Rand contends that free nations have the right to overthrow tyrannical governments, but should do so only when it serves their national interests.

“Dictatorship nations are outlaws,” Rand wrote. “Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent ‘rights’ of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.”

I have a disagreement with Rand regarding the exercise of the “right” to wantonly overthrow oppressive governments, particularly in instances when the outcome of revolutionary wars—generated internally or externally—exacerbate problems (see France, 1789; see also Russia, 1917; see also Iran, 1979). But her main points stand: First, since tyrants don’t derive their powers from the consent of the governed, they are not legitimately sovereign; second, nations should act in their own interests.

In a nutshell, Rand has outlined one aspect of the rhetorical divide between pro-war and anti-war conservatives. The pro-war side is wont to reference Saddam’s cruelties, barbarism, and oppression. The anti-war side wonders how combating the very real cruelties, barbarism, and oppression furthers American interests.