[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Libertarians who reject state warfare are utopian? A libertarian analysis of war is ultimately based upon a view of the State and its relationship to the individual. Any analysis of war draws upon or rejects – explicitly or implicitly -- the centuries-long history of anti-war, anti-militarist theory and activism within the libertarian tradition. A hawk who claims the State can properly command the resources of its own citizens to invade or attack the citizens of another State confronts a very high bar of proof. And it is important to understand that the burden of proof is upon the hawk and not upon critics; in other words, the burden falls upon the person who advocates a process that kills non-combatants and not upon those who fundamentally object to the death of innocent human beings. For a libertarian hawk, the burden is higher because he or she speaks out within a specific ideological context. Even limited-government libertarians, who accept the State and admit the propriety of taxation for certain purposes, need to justify the massive expansion of State power and violation of its citizens' rights that is part of war; they must explain how the implementation of a specific war accords with their libertarian principles. They also need to defend concepts that are antithetical to libertarian theory, like the ‘collective guilt’ of an enemy nation being bombed or occupied. They must reject the lessons of libertarian history – e.g. that war is integral to the rise of the nation state, it militarizes domestic society, it kills free trade, and that past wars have been grabs for power. They also need to root the killing of innocent people in a politics that states “the initiation of force is never justified.” Further, if libertarian theory can be twisted to accept the killing of innocents, the libertarian hawk still needs to explain why the process should be done by government and not by the individual or individuals in joint agreement. Unless libertarian hawks overcome these and many other theoretical and practical barriers, they should simply call themselves hawks. Instead, it is commonplace for them to dismiss critics by labeling them as utopian. (Sometimes the word “pacifist” is used even though most anti-war libertarians are solidly pro-gun rights and self-defense, including the right to resist the State.) The dismissal allows libertarian hawks to avoid the general burden of proof and the need to answer specific objections. Accusing anti-war libertarians of utopianism is rather strange…for several reasons. A criticism – saying that something is wrong -- is not usually called “utopian”; the label is usually reserved for proposals. Moreover, the objections are based on centuries of theory, history and practical experience of war. In terms of theory…if a fundamental objection to killing innocents should be dismissed as utopian then shouldn’t libertarianism itself be dismissed? – after all, it is based on the non-aggression principle. In terms of history…do libertarian hawks dismiss as utopian the detailed anti-militarist critiques of philosophers like Herbert Spencer or the anti-statist insights of revisionist history? In strictly practical terms…how can libertarians justify the actual implementation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let them defend not merely the theory of a current war but also how it is implemented. And, if it is implemented in what Nozick would call "a morally impermissible" manner -- that is, through the mass violation of rights -- then libertarians should reject it on those grounds alone. When pressed on the practical atrocities of war, libertarian hawks generally respond with one of five tactics: 1) They engage in ad hominem attacks upon critics. 2) They blast opposing positions, like pacifism or isolationism, with the clear implication that decimating an opposing theory is tantamount to validating their own. Of course, it is not. 3) They defend a version of just war theory. Then, any theoretical agreement or grayness that arises is directly applied to a current war. But even as the theoretical possibility of a “just government” does not mean the U.S. government is just, neither does the possibility of a just war in theory validate any current war. (I deny both possibilities, BTW) 4) They cry “catastrophe!” War is the only path possible and libertarians must not apply the standards or critiques they would bring to any other issue. In short, moments of crisis require libertarian principles to be suspended and not applied with even more care. 5) They demand your solution as though its absence negates the value of any critique. I am actually sympathetic to the latter demand. Or, rather, I am not sympathetic to the notion that the absence of an alternative negates the value of a critique; you can seek to remedy cancer without presenting an alternative. But it is reasonable to ask “how can a free society defend itself?” That is, can a free society provide defense that is as good or better than the governmental version? (A key standard of “better”, of course, is whether the private defense accords more with libertarianism than the governmental approach.) But answering that question is not my purpose. My purpose here is to discuss whether anti-war libertarians are utopian. They are not. They merely believe actions committed in the name of an ideology should conform to the theory, history and practical application of that ideology. If the actions do not, then the onus is on advocates to explain why and how they are expressing the tradition. Asking for an honest, straight answer shouldn’t be utopian.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Utopian? Hell NO - they are realists --- this is the twenty first century – not the eighteenth century. The world is smaller and more able to communicate – the “fodder” now know better then to be suckered into dying for nothing. The Old World Jewish Cheney Rumsfeld government geopolitical mindset is useless for humanity. The developed world knows this – the rest are catching up quickly.
Tell it to Carthage. A criticism – saying that something is wrong -- is not usually called “utopian”; the label is usually reserved for proposals. Well yes. Empirically, phenomenologically, historically, state warfare is totally normal, and a proposal to not engage in something is still a proposal. if a fundamental objection to killing innocents should be dismissed as utopian then shouldn’t libertarianism itself be dismissed? – after all, it is based on the non-aggression principle. Well yes. Moralist disputes always come down to raw contests of power, physical or verbal; there is no such thing as moral knowledge in the scientific sense of testable universal laws. The best defenses of liberty are epistemological. That is, can a free society provide defense that is as good or better than the governmental version? (A key standard of “better”, of course, is whether the private defense accords more with libertarianism than the governmental approach.) But answering that question is not my purpose. Well that was a waste of time.
"In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." -- Murray Rothbard
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||