Translation
A Bogus Libertarian Defense of War
by Sheldon Richman
Some people think that government can fight wars such as the ones going on in Iraq and Afghanistan while remaining limited and unintrusive at home. Conservatives dubiously insist that a robustly interventionist foreign policy can coexist with a free-market domestic policy. But what's really surprising is that a prominent libertarian legal theorist takes the same position.
In the Wall Street Journal recently, Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote that a libertarian can support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. His aim was to show that Rep. Ron Paul, the only anti-war Republican and libertarian in the presidential race, doesn't speak for all libertarians on the war.
There are two problems with Barnett's thesis: (1) historically, war and preparation for it have been the biggest stimuli to the growth of government, which libertarians philosophically oppose; and (2) the Iraq war is an aggressive war, which libertarians also oppose.
Barnett writes, "While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly."
That is true as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go very far, and what it leaves out is crucial. To be sure, libertarian principles do not prescribe a military strategy or tell us "what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack." But that doesn't mean libertarian principles are silent on these matters; they do tell us what is inappropriate. They tell us that government should not provoke attacks by brutally intervening in other people's affairs, as the U.S. government has done consistently in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Anyone who accepts, as Barnett puts it, "the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory" should insist that the government not endanger the American people by making foreign enemies. A provoked attack would not call for a counterattack, but rather a change in the interventionist policy that created the threat in the first place.
Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University
Moreover, libertarian principles tell us that any response to a truly unprovoked attack must respect the rights of innocents. Actions that can be expected to harm people not involved in the original attack should be avoided. War must not be an occasion for dispensing with normal moral prohibitions. Those who disagree lose their standing to object to the murder of innocents on 9/11.
Barnett acknowledges that libertarians are skeptical that government can do anything constructive on the world stage: "To a libertarian, any effort at 'nation building' seems to be just another form of central planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended consequences and the danger of blowback. And, like most everyone, libertarians oppose any war of aggression."
He's right. But the prohibition on wars of aggression rules out the war in Iraq, which never threatened the American people. Barnett disagrees. He says the war can be justified as part of the defense against Islamic jihadis. But as noted already, the anti-American jihad grew out of decades of oppressive intervention in Arab and Muslim countries. It's the blowback Barnett refers to. Moreover, conquering a secular westernized Arab country seems a peculiar way to defend against jihad. It's far more likely to create new mortal enemies.
Barnett's "libertarian" defense of the war turns out to be nothing of the kind. This is reinforced by the fact that he neglects the libertarian insight that war fortifies everything libertarians abhor: taxes, debt, jobbery, and violations of civil liberties such as privacy. No one has put it better than the anti–World War I writer Randolph Bourne: "War is the health of the state." How can any libertarian defend it?
Quote this article on your site | Views: 3560Comments (12) |  |
It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.
-- Robert Houghwout Jackson,
Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg
In a free society the ability for it not loose sight of this might be its best attribute to itself, and possibly a undeniable precurser, a fountain of youth, to be fed upon in its evolution thru time.
I agree in principal that innocents should not be killed in response to an unprovoked attack. But War will do just that. When the aggressor "junta" has taken control of an aggressor nation's resources and economic capacities to launch its high impact attack, any response to it will necessarily have to include "innocents" that would rather have it otherwise within their own country. Not being able to respond at all would merely give license to said junta to attack from behind their innocents from then on.
Translating it best as possible to a more individual based situation, if my house is being attacked by an armed band and I have access to automatic weapons to protect myself, and I do so, there is a likely possibility that neighbors my harmed, themselves or their property. Am I not able to do so? Of course there may be limits, such as not being able to blow up the whole block, killing a fly with a sledgehammer, but operate within a narrow band of protecting oneself yet may harm others. Responding to unprovoked force isn't within some hermitically sealed region.
Islamo-Fascists seeks to outlaw free speech, cut off the genitals of gays, jail marijuana smokers for life, and force women to wear ugly burqas from head to toe. How is that consistent with libertarian socially tolerant views.
Richman is completely ignorant of libertarian movement history.
If he knew even the slightest bit about the libertarian movement he would know that Barry Goldwater is considered to be the Movement's Iconical Founder, and Dana Rohrabacher it's political founder. Both were (are) stridently Pro-Defense.
Even the Libertarian Party's First Presidential candidate John Hospers was/is a member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus (Libertarian Hawks).
Today's top Libertarians are mostly all Pro-Defense: Larry Kudlow, PJ O'Rourke, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder and Dennis Miller.
Only nutty extremists like Richman, and Ron Paul take the pacifist unlibertarian view.
The author emphasize is an "unprovoked" attack. If some gang attack you in your house that no longer constitutes an unprovoked attack, thereafter you are to defend yourself. However, that still does not give you legal or moral ground to start shooting neighbor's children.
The entire situation changes here when a force occupies another nation (whether justly or unjustly) and faces Resistance.
In my view bombing an entire town to kill few insurgents and to avoid casualties for your military personnel in expense of innocent civilians, it is unethical, immoral, and illegal according to Geneva convention under "protection of civilians act"
Maybe we could learn more about the proper libertarian stance on the Middle East if we focus on the root causes of the conflict. Yes, there are attacks on both sides (with different resources available to each). We have espionage, embargo, terrorism, blowback, invasion, and insurgency. All true.
But what is the root of this conflict? It’s obviously oil. We’re not talking about North Korean weapons of mass destruction, invasions, or insurgents. My question, also as a long-time Libertarian, is: “Whose oil?” Americans desperately need the oil. Our entire economy currently runs on it, from fuel to transportation to materials. It is in our vital national interest. But whose property is it?
If it’s not under American soil, we can trade for it or take it. If people that own oil we need in those other countries won’t trade enough with us, we also have the option of invading those countries and establishing governments we think might be more amenable to trade.
Which of these solutions sounds more Libertarian?
If Libertarians hold that governments are instituted among men to defend life, liberty, and property, then we should probably define whose lives, whose liberties, and whose property. Americans have staggering resources as a group, but not enough oil. Do we trade for it, or take it?
Certainly there will be human rights violations in the countries where the coveted resources exit. There will be despotic leaders claiming to have weapons of mass destruction. We may even believe them from time to time. The world will undoubtedly be filled with all manner of injustice for the foreseeable future. Some of that injustice will undoubtedly occur on land we might have uses for.
Perhaps some will feel it isn’t about oil. It’s about the downtrodden people under these despotic regimes. Maybe Americans can extend the scope of our government to defend those people too. People who don’t and can’t help pay for it, but still need the protection we’ve defined as essential.
Where does the jurisdiction of our national defense end? Beyond the cost and feasibility of having the U.S. military define and enforce American ideals globally, a matter for any Libertarian to confront is whether we should do such a thing. What would be our response to another strong nation attempting to militarily define how American government should interact with Americans?
If we don’t get involved militarily, is that Isolationism? Or is it Non-Interventionism? Look up the terms yourself. Will trading with the rest of the world help us? Will it help them?
Can we be non-interventionist and still go after any attackers with frightening resolve and persistence? Can we make it much more painful to attack the U.S. than to trade with us?
I guess it depends on your definition defense.
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Sheldon Richman Randy E. Barnett Georgetown UniversityWall Street Journal Libertarian