Defense of Liberty

Free Republic ^ | September 23, 2001 | Annalex

[annalex]

Defense of Liberty

By Annalex

This is not the article I intended to post this week. Instead, I decided to put together some thoughts on the essence of libertarianism as applied to this war. I believe that the theoretical foundation of libertarianism: individual rights and freedoms, primacy of the individual over the collective and distrust of democratic government unrestrained by strict constitutionalism, -- will continue to animate American conservatism through this crisis and for years to come. In fact, when the President speaks of America as a force of good, hated because of her freedom, -- he speaks of libertarian values.

I also believe that the future of libertarianism in American political thought is in danger. There is a distinct possibility that the libertarians as a group of thinkers will blunder into irrelevance, --not because of their principles, but because of a cultural bias that has rendered them blind to the reality of the war that just started.

What is the bias and what is the reality?

Among all nations, America is uniquely dedicated to the proposition of individual freedom. It also has a powerful government, that is, as is its nature, intrusive and often violative of individual freedoms. There is no paradox here: it is the normal tension between the individual and the collective. Libertarianism is one-directional: no matter what is the present condition of individual freedoms vis-à-vis the collective coercion, libertarianism will pull for the individual just because the government will always pull for the collective. In absence of a recognized theoretical foundation and an analytical attitude, the pulling becomes a cultural bias: if the government does something, it must be wrong. If the individual wants something, it must be his right.

Thus a review of the recent offerings from the usual sources of libertarian thinking: Harry Browne, Lew Rockwell, Future of Freedom Foundation, -- reveal an amazingly myopic view of the conflict. It boils down to the assertions that the government has created the crisis with its imperial foreign policy; that punishing the terrorists is a matter of law, not war; that a rapid retreat from America's global positions is the road to victory; that any wartime measure that the government may adopt is a further assault on our freedoms.

Not so.

The government exists to protect individual rights. I cannot think of a greater violation of individual rights than having an airliner explode over you as you reach for your morning coffee. Our country has been invaded. The individuals that make up this country have their lives in danger. Thousands already lost theirs. We don't know how many future victims we'll mourn before it's over. The perpetrators of this atrocity are organized: they are a country in all but geography. From September 11 on, our government is waging a just, defensive war. It is doing precisely what a government should be doing. Every libertarian should be out on the street with an American flag and a lit candle. Any assistance should be given the government in prosecuting the war. Any impeding of the government's warmaking function is an assault on individual rights.

So, isn't the criticism of American foreign policy prior to September 11 valid? Some of it is. But it now belongs to the past. The important thing is that nothing in our foreign policy was aggressive in nature. The worst, the cruelest blunders of the Clinton's administration were reactions, -- often, misguided or self-serving reactions, -- to someone else's greater cruelty. This war is between civilizations. In that it is similar to the Cold War. It is not between nations, -- it is between ideologies. Our libertarian ideology of individual freedom is at war. Note that the enemy didn't strike Europe, where freedoms and individual rights are handouts form the state; it didn't strike Israel where the actual fighting for territory takes place; it didn't, in all likelihood, come from Iraq, which is our enemy as a nation. Its bloodiest attack was against peaceful traders of property. Of all political colors and stripes we, libertarians should be in the front, and we haven't been.

This is a war and not a police action. Those who perpetrated the atrocity are already dead. At the root of this is an ideology that will breed new atrocities just as fast as we punish for the old ones. This is a war. Call it a war. Fight it like a war. Go on the offensive: invade countries, topple regimes, install friendly governments. For every mullah out there, afraid of his own women, we have a General MacArthur. Godspeed.

We can be certain that the forces of statism will exploit this tragedy to their nefarious ends. War surtaxes are likely; a citizen database is a virtual certainty; a taxpayer bailout of the airline industry has already happened; a thorough bashing of political opponents of strong central government or imperial foreign policy as unpatriotic and outright treasonous should be expected. It is our duty to fight such encroachments of freedom, not only because of what they are, but because they do not make America stronger, and we need strength.

At the same time, we should remember what rights really are. No libertarian can seriously say that a private transaction that happens between the airline and the passenger is a matter of rights. There is no right to a steak knife or a gun in a carryon luggage - unless you put it in the trunk and drive. Anyone can rightfully refuse service to a customer without identification. It is not clear to me, and I think of individual rights a lot, what "right to privacy" precisely is. At most we can say that a national ID and a citizen database are dangerous tools in the hands of a hostile government. But they are not necessarily violations of individual rights per se; their misuse is.

The libertarians like to think in proximate causes. Thus we have an aversion to foreign policy, because it is all about preemptive actions, choosing sides early, and making prognoses based on cultural proclivities rather than concrete deeds. For the same reason we have a difficulty understanding nationhood and war. We need to learn very fast.

***

I changed the tag of our series from "Pursuit of Liberty" to "Defense of Liberty". I will continue the topics that we have started: individual rights, nature of property, moral defense of capitalism, just taxation, proper role of government, liberty and God's law. I will post as much as I can on nationhood, civilization, civil society and culture. I will have to slow down from a weekly publication to, perhaps, monthly, unless someone is willing to be my partner in this. That is because, sadly, I don't anticipate much help from the libertarian publications any more, and doing my own writing or researching sources that are not on the surface of the Internet takes time.

All rights reserved. Reproduction in full is authorized with attribution to the Free Republic and Annalex.

[randalcousins]

Pardon me for being disrespectful to an objectivist, but Tracinski's analysis is childish. He exhibits the characteristically American dualistic interpretation of the world as divided into "good" states and "bad" states. His suggestion that the Cold War resulted in any fundamental way from America "allying" with Soviet Russia is pitifully inept. He probably overstates the importance of LendLease and certainly underestimates the consequences for America if Germany had been allowed to defeat Russia in 1942. His first "lesson of history" is of the Ford variety: "bunk".

His second lesson is the classic American mistake of believing the nationalists lost in South Vietnam just because "the US military's hands were tied". For goodness' sake, every other government in the world was telling your government in 1963/4 that you could not possibly win in Vietnam. What, were they just a bunch of halfwits who didn't know what they were talking about, compared to the genius-level intellects of LBJ's State Dept? But they proved to be right, didn't they? And they included the British, who had fought and won our own war against Communist insurgents in Malaya, and the French, who had experienced conditions on the ground in Vietnam first-hand.

Had the US military been given a free hand, even had they been allowed to reoccupy Hanoi and the whole of North Vietnam (can you imagine the number of troops it would have taken to do that?) you would simply have ended up doing the same thing on a hugely larger scale with support for the rebels coming over the border from China. Let's face it, that wasn't exactly a recipe for western success in the Korean War, was it?

Military people almost always recommend escalation as the solution to conflict situations (one of the reasons Powell is unusually good in that role, because he doesn't seem to be quite so wedded to it). While that's fine if you're fighting a "real" war, when you use all available force in open combat against another country, it's not only usually unsuccessful when fighting to suppress dissent within a country, it is also usually deeply morally wrong in such circumstances.

So Tracinski's understanding of history is completely upside down, and then he seeks to base a policy for today's problems upon it.

Ironically, his final "lesson of history" is spot on. Bush senior's decision to halt the attack on Iraq, for fear of the consequences of break-up, was foolish with hindsight (and many, including myself, said so at the time). That said, nobody really expected Saddam to survive the consequences of losing the Gulf War anyway.

And I actually believe Tracinski's proposal - active destruction of the governments of countries which harbour terrorists - is viable, but only if there is no exaggerated attempt to maintain favourable alternative regimes thereafter or to "change" the people of the country for the better. The way to deal with regimes in primitive countries which cause trouble without openly declaring war is the "punitive raid" - go in, temporarily occupy the appropriate bits militarily and snatch or kill the guys you believe are causing the trouble and then get out again as quickly as possible, leaving the country to sort itself out again on its own. Such action would be a lot easier in the age of airborne warfare than in previous eras. Once you get bogged down into supporting favourable regimes which cannot maintain themselves in power without direct assistance you end up making your puppet regime and your own soldiers sitting targets, and creating a threatening military presence to worry other countries in the area.

And of course, all of this is a waste of time if you're going to let your government go back to its former ways of poking its nose into everybody else's quarrels at the behest of whichever interest or lobby group has the "ear" of the Administration at the time.

[annalex]

The outcome of Korean War was better that the outcome of the Vietnam war, just ask a South Korean and a South Vietnamese to compare notes. Didn't China actually have a small border war with Vietnam in the late 60's or early 70's?

Alliance with the USSR in the early stages of their war with Hitler made sense; however, the continuation of the alliance past 1945 didn't. Time to prevent the partitioning of Central Europe was in 1945-49, and that time was lost by the sheer inertia of the pact with Stalin.

But be it as it may, the interesting point here is that in Tracinski we have a libertarian who is very unwilling to give peace a chance, or to treat this war as a matter of individual justice.

I agree with your last two paragraphs to the extent that unless a lot of effort is devoted to nation-building after the war, -- comparable to the US occupation of Japan or Britain's management of the colonies prior to WWII, -- then it is better to let the new regime there grow organically on its own. There is no question that we should redefine American imperialism when this is over.

[randalcousins]

"The outcome of Korean War was better that the outcome of the Vietnam war, just ask a South Korean and a South Vietnamese to compare notes."

Then go and ask a North Korean. At least Vietnam has been able to move on. Hopefully the Vietnamese people will eventually find their way to freedom if they can avoid being "helped" by any more competing superpowers.

"Didn't China actually have a small border war with Vietnam in the late 60's or early 70's?"

Yes, in 1979 after China and the Soviets had split and Vietnam went with the Soviets. And a Vietnamese "humanitarian intervention" against Pol Pot.

"Alliance with the USSR in the early stages of their war with Hitler made sense; however, the continuation of the alliance past 1945 didn't. Time to prevent the partitioning of Central Europe was in 1945-49, and that time was lost by the sheer inertia of the pact with Stalin."

Agreed, although there wasn't any real prospect of stopping much of eastern europe falling into Soviet hands by 1945. However, at least some more serious attempts could have been made. But you can understand if the stomach wasn't there for a confrontation right after 6 years of war had just ended.

"But be it as it may, the interesting point here is that in Tracinski we have a libertarian who is very unwilling to give peace a chance, or to treat this war as a matter of individual justice."

Back to my point about hysteria in reaction to the WTC atrocity. It's understandable, but still not a good foundation for a rational assessment of the lessons to be drawn and the correct course for the future.

"I agree with your last two paragraphs to the extent that unless a lot of effort is devoted to nation-building after the war, -- comparable to the US occupation of Japan or Britain's management of the colonies prior to WWII, -- then it is better to let the new regime there grow organically on its own. There is no question that we should redefine American imperialism when this is over. "

I don't think the German and Japanese cases can be applied. In each case you had there a nation which had surrendered unconditionally, isolated from any neighbours either by sea or by hostility, with no "common cause" to draw other nations, or groups within other nations, to support any opposition to reeducation of the populace and restructuring of the nation.

The same could not be said of any muslim country occupied by the west with the intention of "converting" it to a westernised secular nation, unless the entire muslim world were to be occupied simultaneously. If you want to imagine the outrage the idea would generate, imagine if France were occupied by a coalition of muslim countries and forced to repudiate Christianity, both as a state and as people.

Western countries have still far from recovered from the poisonous effects of WW1 and WW2, as far as enlargement of government and infringement of our liberties is concerned. Can you imagine how much more damage our governments will inflict upon our nations during the course of an open-ended war on terrorism involving bitter repression of dissent in occupied country after occupied country?

[annalex]

The particular harshness of the North Koreans' plight has to do with the fact that their regime consolidated when the Soviet empire was at its peak.

"converting" it to a westernised secular nation

I don't suggest that. To be precise, I don't suggest any religious or even cultural conversions. An occupation force, providing law enforcement that punishes abuses of life and property, that would leave cultural teaching to the imams, would do for 5-10 years, after which there is a good chance of a homegrown civil society to emerge.

I am sure you agree that France would greatly benefit from an occupational force that eradicates 30 hour work week and the language police as abuses of property and, by all means, leaves the cuisine intact.

[randalcousins]

"I don't suggest that. To be precise, I don't suggest any religious or even cultural conversions. An occupation force, providing law enforcement that punishes abuses of life and property, that would leave cultural teaching to the imams, would do for 5-10 years, after which there is a good chance of a homegrown civil society to emerge."

Do you really believe that real life works that way?

"I am sure you agree that France would greatly benefit from an occupational force that eradicates 30 hour work week and the language police as abuses of property and, by all means, leaves the cuisine intact."

Absolutely. The occupational force could usefully hunt down and reeducate their philosophers, as well.

[annalex]

Could work for Afghanistan, absolutely. They've been under ideological and foreign occupation for generations, and are isolated from other radical muslim hotbeds now that Pakistan is in our corner. I am betting on the hunch that in every muslim country, no matter how radicalized, the majority of the population doesn't want to bomb anything, they just want to economically survive.

In the same vein, I think that the best thing for the Palestinians is to be annexed by Israel, when the mad bombers will become a matter of law enforcement and everyone who wants to work for a living could get a job in Israel proper. The major foundation of stability for a while there was the open border with Lebanon, through which daily laborers commuted. When Israel was forced to seal that border -- thanks to Hezbolla, which hated that very stability, all kinds of trouble started.

[randalcousins]

"Could work for Afghanistan, absolutely. They've been under ideological and foreign occupation for generations, and are isolated from other radical muslim hotbeds now that Pakistan is in our corner. I am betting on the hunch that in every muslim country, no matter how radicalized, the majority of the population doesn't want to bomb anything, they just want to economically survive."

There you go again, confusing regimes and people. The Pakistani regime might be "in our corner", and even some of the people. But most aren't and a very significant fraction are emphatically in the other corner. The latter can only grow, both in numbers and in hatred, with the inevitable messiness of any occupation of Afghanistan.

No, it could not work for Afghanistan, or probably for any middle eastern country, and any attempt to do it can only end in utter catastrophe, first for the targeted country, then for surrounding countries and other muslim countries worldwide, and ultimately for the west.

"In the same vein, I think that the best thing for the Palestinians is to be annexed by Israel, when the mad bombers will become a matter of law enforcement and everyone who wants to work for a living could get a job in Israel proper. The major foundation of stability for a while there was the open border with Lebanon, through which daily laborers commuted. When Israel was forced to seal that border -- thanks to Hezbolla, which hated that very stability, all kinds of trouble started. "

I prefer not to comment on the Arab/Israeli situation. My feelings are accurately summed up by the expression "a plague on both your houses".

[annalex]

I meant that Pakistanbi regime in our corner. That is sufficient to substantially isolate Afghani insurgents in Afghanistan. That wasn't the case before, when the Taliban was fed from Pakistan's Pushtuns.

[randalcousins]

Justin Raimondo has retained his cool, unlike many in the Libertarian camp. His latest is a top notch comment.

Nice one, Justin.

[Justin Raimondo]

Thanks, bud. You don't know what I went through to get it out, though: the computer ate the first version and I had to totally reconstruct it from memory!

[annalex]

I like the recent Justin's columns better than the old ones, perhaps because the threat to our nation is concrete this time.

In my article I did not go into the How of this war, but Randalcousins sort of dragged me into it in the course of the thread. The position I hold is first, that since the threat is extranational, it is impossible to single out any particular nation as the enemy, and Bush's formula of "any country that harbors (i.e. abets) terrorism" is the only logical one. It is true that this war has a potential to expand as the terrorist base moves and scatters. That is an unfortunate fact; it's still a fact.

Second, I believe that the threat originates from the death spasms of the receding militant Arab civilization. Hence a proportional punishment, applicable to a civilizational peer, will not prevent future attacks. Therefore a need for an occupational force or a puppet govenrnment virtually everywhere in ayatollastan.

If anyone wishes to dispute the above theses seriously, let's start a new thread.

[headsonpikes]

BTTT!

[annalex]

Blush, thanks.

[annalex]

Next thread: Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory

Heads, I'd be happy to add you to the bump list, -- let me know.

[packrat01]

Time will tell if abuses of liberty, in the name of liberty, will be forthcoming.

I can tell you now that they will be, if you rather not wait all that time.

Please do. I'd at least like to compare your list with my own.

[packrat01]

it appears that if the state asks you to disclose personal information as a condition of citizenship, and if it gives you the precise perimeter in which it will use that information, then it is legitimate for the state to do so

Going forward, perhaps. If I don't spit on their DNA-test slide, can they then take away my citizenship?

Say rather, condition of naturalized citizenship

Don't go off ex-post-facto on us.

[packrat01]

A distinction should be made between dealing with a country that can be expected to act in accordance with international law (e.g. that subscribes to non-aggression principles similar to what I outlined), and a rogue country. Preemptive aggression against a rogue country can be justified under some circumstances.

How can Preemptive aggression against a rogue NOT be itself rogue behavior?

[annalex]

You are right about citizenship, -- conditions of citizenship are only rightful if they precede the citizenship (i.e. apply to naturalizing immigrants), or if they offer an alternative.

[annalex]

Re. preemptive aggression. It is justified when the rogue nation has demonstrated its hostile intention and has not responded to concerns expressed through diplomatic channels but hasn't committed an act of aggression against us yet. That is, you deal with a force that you can't communicate with and that has a potential for harm, like a rabid animal.

[AKbear]

Ok, they have given up the information, now they are citizens. Now what? Don't they have the same protections a natural citizen has? Are they second class citizens just because they got to the game late? What happens to that information? Can it be used against them in the future?

That path is too fraught with perils. Many people come to this country expecting freedom. Then they find they will be second class citizens and the resentment starts to build. I see danger in even that course.