Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff

The Ayn Rand Institute ^ | September 15, 1998 - September 12, 2001 | Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Andrew Lewis

[annalex]

Released: September 15, 1998

Fanning the Flames of Terrorism
Clinton’s “Anti-Terrorist Policy” Should Target Governments Not Individuals
By Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Lewis

     The recent attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a bloody reminder of the threat posed by terrorists. Almost all commentators and politicians hailed America’s swift response as a positive step. In fact, however, Clinton’s assault on Osama bin Laden will only encourage the terrorists.
     In recent years, America’s reaction to terrorist acts has been a mixture of cowardly compromise and empty legalistic threats. In the two months prior to the embassy attacks alone, the Clinton Administration made three outstanding concessions. It capitulated to Libya, promising to drop all UN sanctions if it releases the prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. It closed the investigation into TWA 800, leaving forever unresolved the cause of the disaster. It emasculated the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, because evidence emerged linking the bombing to Iran, whose regime Clinton is now courting.
     By promising only trials and international courts, Clinton has made a mockery of the atrocities. Terrorists have no respect for the rule of law; that is why they are called “terrorists.” Administration officials repeatedly assert that we are engaged in a “war against terrorism.” True — and wars are not fought or won in a courtroom.
     The attacks on Osama bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were lauded by many as a welcome change from years of this legalistic claptrap. However, the attacks were deliberately toothless. Clinton aimed at a few peripheral installations, while proudly proclaiming his commitment that no “innocent” working a night shift in the Sudan would die. There are no innocents in a war — and certainly none in a chemical weapons facility. The clear implication is that saving terrorist agents is more important to the President than protecting Americans who will be killed by their weapons. In essence, Clinton has declared “open season” on Americans.
     Most important, Clinton’s attacks diverted attention from the real agents of terrorism. In blaming and targeting a single individual — in insisting that an isolated maniac was responsible and lying to deny that man’s proven connections with Middle East governments — Clinton exonerated all terrorist-sponsoring regimes, including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and others. It is not merely that Clinton wanted to avoid offending the Afghani Taliban and the Sudanese government. He wanted to avoid offending any governments involved in terrorism, despite their proven function as protector and sanctioner of the killers. The result: he showed each and every one of these governments that they are safe to sponsor as many bin Ladens as they want.
     Terrorism is a form of war. Evil men such as bin Laden cannot wage it alone. Although bin Laden certainly deserves to die, his capacity to kill and maim is made possible only by the governments that shelter his kind. Only governments have the power to protect terrorists, sponsor or wink at their training camps, and provide or applaud their weapons, transport and all the other support necessary to enter and exit their target countries. Targeting the individual killer leaves the real mass murderer — the terrorist-loving government — unpunished, secure in the knowledge that their victim is too cowardly to retaliate in kind.
     The inevitable result of this policy is exactly what bin Laden has promised: a continuing war against Americans. The bombing of an American restaurant in South Africa a few days later was only the beginning. From Teheran to Tripoli, the governmental sponsors of terrorism will continue to protect the bin Ladens of this world until and unless they are shown that they themselves will suffer massively for doing so.
     The only way to end terrorism is through a policy of real military strikes against the aggressors. If, as the Clinton Administration tells us repeatedly, we are engaged in a war, then let us see a war, fought not with words, but with the full, untrammeled power of our military, including, as and when necessary, the use of our most potent and destructive weapons against the seat of the governments involved.
     The only alternative is the continued slaughter of Americans by terrorist bombs ignited by the cowardice of American policy-makers.

Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. http://www.aynrand.org

---

Released: September 12, 2001

Fifty Years of Appeasement Led to Black Tuesday
By Leonard Peikoff Download an image of this author for print publication.)-->

       Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the United States. The inevitable climax was the tens of thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001—the blackest day in our history, so far. The Palestinians, among others, responded by dancing in the streets and handing out candy.
       Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.
       This capitulation was not practical, but philosophical. The Arab dictators were denouncing the wealthy egoistic West. They were crying that the masses of their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew all this by means of ineffable or otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer aloud that Americans, rightfully, were motivated by the selfish desire to pursue personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
       The Arabs embodied in extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities and churches, and our own political Establishment, had long been preaching as the essence of virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent wins.
       After property came liberty. The Iranian dictator Khomeini threatened with death a British author—and with destruction his American publisher—if they exercised their right to free speech. He explained that the book in question offended the religion of his people. The Bush Administration looked the other way.
       After liberty came American life itself—as in Iran's support of the massacre of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the Afghanistan-based assault on our embassies in East Africa. Again, the American response was unbridled appeasement: a Realpolitikisch desire not to "jeopardize relations" with the aggressor country, covered up by a purely rhetorical vow to punish the guilty, along with an occasional pretend bombing. By now, the world knows that we are indeed a paper tiger.
       We have not only appeased terrorists, we have actively created them. The Reagan Administration—holding that Islamic fundamentalists were our ideological allies in the fight against the atheistic Soviets—poured money and expertise into Afghanistan to create an ever-growing band of terrorists recruited from all over the Mideast. Most of these terrorists knew what to do with their American training; their goal was not to save Afghanistan.
       The final guarantee of American impotence is the bipartisan proclamation that a terrorist is an individual alone responsible for his actions, and that "we must try each before a court of law." This is tantamount, while under a Nazi aerial bombardment, to seeking out and trying the pilots involved while ignoring Hitler and Germany.
       Terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of the governments behind them. Their lethal behavior is that of the regimes that make them possible. Their killings are not crimes, but acts of war. The only proper response to such acts is war in self-defense.
       We do not need more evidence to "pinpoint" the perpetrators of any one of these atrocities, including the latest and most egregious—we already have total certainty with regard to the governments primarily responsible for the repeated slaughter of Americans in recent years. We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire. We must wipe out the terrorist training camps or sanctuaries, and eliminate any retaliatory military capability—and thereby terrorize and paralyze all the tyrannies watching, who will now know what is in store for them if they choose in any form to attack the United States. That will be the end of the terrorists.
       Our missiles and occupation troops, however, will be effective only if they are preceded by our President's morally righteous statement that we intend hereafter to defend by every means possible each American's right to his property, his liberty, and his secure enjoyment of life here on earth.
       To those who oppose war, I ask: If not now, when? How many more corpses are necessary before this country should take action?
       The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. President Bush must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who seek to kill them.

Leonard Peikoff is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.     Send Feedback

[Demidog]

In #77 you misrepresented my position. My position is that it is rightful to claim unclaimed property when no offense occurs to the rights of present property holders. I do not say that it is rightful to claim property merely because there is no intention to claim them. For example, if a Bedouin declares that he would like to hold on to that piece of sand because he might drill for oil later, then Exxon should respect his wishes as long as his claim is material and credible.

Absurd. If the Bedouin declares that he wants to hold on to that piece of sand because he needs a place to piss, Exxon had better respect his wishes. It's not their land.

By that I mean that the Bedouin should travel through the land or otherwise be present on it; and he should somehow make his intention more than an empty abstract intent.

It is not up to the holder of the rights to do anything. He doesn't have to prove anything. He can let it sit for the birds and never have any intent to do anything "useful" as his rights to the land are not incumbant on some arbitrary judgement of his good or bad intentions.

If the Bedouin says to Exxon: Sorry, I just contacted the French engineers that might rent me their drilling equipment, and besides I enjoy the sunset over that particular sand dune, -- then perhaps, the Exxon should not claim but negotiate.

Exxon can do whatever it likes. But it has no claim to property which it does not own. Rights, such as mineral, right of way and property, can be purchased from the original holder. If the holder doesn't want to sell, then he doesn't have to sell and he doesn't have to provide any good reason for his refusal.

You're espousing something similar to eminant domain. The rights of the property holders can be circumvented or over-ridden if they do not have the proper motivations for a given piece of property.

I do object to the Arabian (or Alaskan) government simply claiming that anyone who wishes to drill inside the sovereignty perimeter needs a permit from the government.

Not a permit. Rights to the property. Without them, you can't just walk in and drill.

The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. If there is no objection coming from the Bedouin or from an Alaskan, then a foreigner should be able to extract the resource.

Not without rights. You're correct that the government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. And if the citizens wish the oil to be left in the ground, it stays.

So, to answer directly your question in #78, if the Alaskans do not want Exxon (or a foreign oil company) to drill there, they have to say so.

This is equivalent to: "If the citizens of America do not wish the government to steal their assets at gunpoint they need to say so."

Without proper rights to the minerals or property or both, Exxon is committing an act of agression and expecting that it can do so with impunity because nobody has stepped up to make a specific "credible" claim to prevent them from doing so. In the meantime, they make profits and take the resources without holding proper rights to the property.

If the Alaskan government doesn't want the drilling but cannot connect its (government's) wants to any popular demand, then that government has no legitimacy in doing so.

Again you are not espousing anything resembling libertarian principles. Exxon is barred from acting until they have secured the rights to the land and the resources. It's not about permissions. It's about rights. I agree that once they have secured the rights to the property they can do what they want with it.

But I may not simply walk into the wilderness of Alaska and build a home and claim that I have secured any rights to the land it is built upon simply because nobody objected.

You are putting the cart before the horse here and I can't understand why. If I leave my wallet, filled with C notes on a park bench, you can't pick it up, use all of the money and then claim that you haven't stolen simply because I never noticed or objected beforehand.

[Demidog]

Government shouldn't have the ability to do anything as important as determining what happens, just the ability to enforce a few rules.

Soverignty is the control of ones domain. For you and I, it means that we control ourselves and our domains (personal property). For a nation it means they control what occurs within the boundaries of their nation.

If the Arabs were anarchists and had no government but did have an agreement with the surrounding nations that their territory was a few imaginary lines on topol maps, their determination of "what happens" might just be that no oil drilling occurs within those boundaries.

Or that all of the land within those boundaries is the joint property of all who were citizens. Or some other thing. But no outsider gets to walk in and dictate to them what "rights" he has inside their borders other than his natural rights as a human being. In that case it's not a matter of dictating as his rights originate from choice and already exist. They aren't subject to negotiation.

I suppose that property rights aren't natural. The natural right to property could be more aptly described as territorial rights. Property rights are not something you can find demonstrated in the natural world. We have invented them. Not even amongst "uncivilized" tribal communities do you find the concept strongly represented. Certainly not in the animal kingdom.

You won't find a Lioness that values any personally "owned" object, but you will find that she values territory and will defend that territory. And she will move on to find new territory when the resources are depleted. And the cycle of protecting the new territory begins anew. Personal belongings aren't a hot commodity in nature. Territory is. And it's not the same thing.

When the Natives "sold" Manhattan for a few trinkets, it was not a truly legal transaction as both parties were not in agreement as to the terms of the contract. The natives hadn't the same concept of property ownership. Manhattan was a hunting ground. They believed what was being purchased was the permission to hunt there. Many tribes hunted there. None owned the land.

I happen to believe that property rights, while an invented concept and not at all in agreement with or born of natural rights, are nevertheless imperative for the health of the environment and the freedom of humans.

Our government buys property, and then rents out the mineral rights to companies that have no vested interest in the future value of that land. Thus our government is the holder of the largest and most expensive superfund cleanup sites in the nation.

Walking into some wilderness area and taking the resources without owning the rights to that land is exactly the same. Once the resources are depleted the squatter can leave having done himself no harm but perhaps having left the land uninhabitable.

[annalex]

Your entire post confuses claiming of unclaimed property with claiming somebody else's property. The first is generally rightful; the second - always unrightful.

[Demidog]

Your entire post confuses claiming of unclaimed property with claiming somebody else's property. The first is generally rightful; the second - always unrightful.

I don't believe I have confused anything at all.

You are claiming that oil, underneath land which is claimed by a sovereign nation or state, can be claimed irrespective of the land which covers it where nobody has stepped forward to challenge the claim.

I disagree. I believe that it is necessary to first secure the rights to the oil before drilling. Only if there is no controlling authority of that land (ie; it is part of no sovereign nation or state territory) may you make a claim to it. (unless the nation or state has provided specific procedures for taking posession of unclaimed land) And if you are going to make a claim to the oil, I also think you must claim the terriritory as well.

[annalex]

Nations and states don't "claim" property, individuals do. Sovereignty means area of jurusdiction, where laws made by the national government apply. Sure, some governments make it difficult for foreigners to acquire property, but unless a concrete damage can be shown to individuals from such acquisitions, such laws violate the libertarian principles of freedom of exchange.

[Demidog]

but unless a concrete damage can be shown to individuals from such acquisitions, such laws violate the libertarian principles of freedom of exchange.

Why is this so? How about trespassing? You've trespassed and that violates the non-agression principle. Do you really suggest that trespassing is OK if it doesn't concretely harm the property owner?

Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable for a nation or state to reserve exploration for the benefit of its own citizens and I just don't see how this violates any libertarian principle.

[Demidog]

Nations and states don't "claim" property,

But they do claim territory. In my 81 I explained the distinction between the sovereignty of a nation and the sovereignty of the individual and how they might differently interpret their rights to certain property.

The territory of a sovereign nation is made up of the lines of demarcation beyond which their laws cease to carry any authority.

That territory is in fact claimed however. And it is within their power to defend and protect those borders. Anyone who sets foot within that territory does so with the explicit knowledge that he is subject to all laws in that territory.

Any claim he makes on property within that territory is null and void if he hasn't purchased or negotiated rights to that property from either the individual who currently holds rights to that property or the nation which holds claim to the terrority.

Anything outside those actions is legitimately considered to be criminal trespass and theft.

[annalex]

The system you describe is state ownership of all unclaimed land; when a citizen claims previously unclaimed by another citizen land, he in fact receives it from the government. This puts the government in the role of the originator of all real property. Historically, such systems of property exist as a result of a war for territory that a government has fought; the land in the American West was partly distributed to homesteaders in that fashion, and partly remained government property. This is not the only system of real property, and it has no justification other than in historical circumstance; the natural law, and the libertarian principles would place the government in its only proper role as law enforcer and not a landlord-by-default.

[Demidog]

The system you describe is state ownership of all unclaimed land;

No it isn't. It's state authority over all unclaimed land within its borders. It can settle disputes and it can determine the accepted method for making claims on land.

And it can tell anyone who hasn't gone through those accepted methods to go away.

[annalex]

But the only thing we have naturally is a set of potential individual claimants; they don't come divided into foreign and domestic claimants. Under natural law, if the potential claimants agree on the process of claiming unclaimed (individually unclaimed) property, then any claim that follows the process is just. Exxon is a potential claimant and should participate in the formulation of the rules.

You make the government, which some but not all of the potential claimants commission, a necessary player in property distribution. That is wrong philosophically, -- because we can easily imagine an ungoverned society which has property rights, -- and it is surely illibertarian. Now, let us recall what the argument is about. You say that Peikoff deviates from the libertarian philosophy and I say he doesn't. If your point is that the government is a necessary element in any system of property rights, then you are debating the core libertarian principle of minimal government; but you are already wrong on whether Peikoff's views are in conformance with libertarianism.

[Demidog]

Now, let us recall what the argument is about.

Yes lets. Piekoff says go steal the oil. I say it's stealing you say its libertarian.

And, without government there is no real property ownership. You do not find that in nature. Thus "property rights" which aren't attached to personal belongings do not exist outside of governed borders.

I suppose we agree on the matter of foreign and domestic property owners. I say that you're correct in one sense but it's about who does and who doesn't have the property rights regardless of their status.

Perhaps this is more of a value disagreement. You seem to think that all resources in the ground are for the taking by whomever gets their first.

I don't agree with that stance and I say that you are talking less about libertarian principle and more about a certain mindset which says 'if it's there we can go get it and use it to "create wealth."' And you are trying to fit that within a political philosophy where it just doesn't really belong.

I don't agree with that mindset. I do believe that a sovereign nation may refuse to allow people to willy nilly make claims on the resources within their borders and that there is nothing illibertarian about that in the slightest.

[annalex]

Piekoff says go steal the oil.

He doesn't. It appears that I wasted my time explaining that oil, or anything else, is not property unless an individual owns it. You had plenty of material on this thread to grasp this notion; if you haven't, it is pointless to re-explain it to you.

I am familiar with the position that natural resources can be claimed by a nation as a whole and that as you say "without government there is no real property ownership". The view that a nation or the government apart from the individuals is a source of property is precisely antithetical to libertarianism. You can argue for the position of course -- you won't be alone doing that, -- but please, don't mislabel it as libertarian.

In historical reality the oil companies were invited by governments to explore oil and were given concessions to that end. So the oil companies typically acted properly even within the imperfect legal framework of the governments. Then at some point the governments demanded that the oil industry be nationalized, -- that is, stolen from the oil companies. Our government, as Peikoff suggests, would be justified in reclaiming that property.

[Demidog]

The view that a nation or the government apart from the individuals is a source of property is precisely antithetical to libertarianism.

We are talking about land here. Not personal posessions. And no it's not antithetical to libertarianism to understand that the only way you can trade real estate is in the presence of government. The only way one can own land is if there is a piece of paper that says he does. Otherwise he is simply making a claim. One never really owns land.

One can chose a territory and defend it. But one doesn't own land. That is a modern invention. If you owned it, you could take it somewhere else.

[Demidog]

Our government, as Peikoff suggests, would be justified in reclaiming that property.

Even if your description of libertarian principle were completely true, this statement would be completely false unless you are admitting to U.S. nationalization of the oil companies and believe this is "libertarian."

Because in your scenario, the only individuals having a real claim on that oil are the corporations. The oil companies. End of story. And nobody in the U.S. has a "right" to oil. The only people harmed by the actions of the Arabs were the oil companies. Because Piekoff doesn't like the fact that his gasoline costs a buck and a half a gallon, he thinks that war is the remedy.

[annalex]

Ownership of property has nothing to do with the ability to move it. Of course real property is property that can be owned just like any moveable possession.

Registry of deeds doesn't have to be a function of government. Since in modern times a government is always around, it becomes a convenient registrar, but it doesn't have to be this way. In order to defend a title to the property any unambiguous and credible evidence would do; it could be documentation kept by a private party or simply fences, monuments and other artifacts traceable to the owner present on the property itself.

In any event, the need for a registry doesn't translate into a need for a national in scope government setting restriction on foreign ownership.

[annalex]

I have a difficulty parsing your #94, but this is what I think on the subject of oil companies. The oil company is a group of individual owners acting in concert. They had property -- the oil rigs and the rights to the oil therein -- that they put in Arabia with the Arab government's consent. When the Arab governments nationalized their oil industry, they took possession of these properties by force. Now, our government would be justified in taking the original oil rights back to the oil company owners; the only problem is passage of time that we allowed to elapse after the nationalization.

[Demidog]

You are only thinking of part of the problem. The other part of the equation is defense. You can never own land. I'm sorry that this is one of those times where we'll never agree because I enjoy arguing with you. You are polite, well spoken and thoughtful. But this is a religious issue.

There is no land ownership. It is an illusion. It's pretend. It's not something you can find in nature.

Thus, if you're going to play a pretend game, you need a government so that you're "rights" to that land can be protected.

The fact that real property is not something found in nature, means that it really isn't a right. It is something that can only be born from an agreement that is made between all of the inhabitants of a territory. It is an invention of the mind.

[Demidog]

When the Arab governments nationalized their oil industry, they took possession of these properties by force. Now, our government would be justified in taking the original oil rights back to the oil company owners;

How so? Our government is not involved in the transaction and has no jurisdiction. That wouldn't be even remotely legal. Our government was not harmed either. Only the corporation. It is the corporation's responsibility to handle its affairs.

[annalex]

here is no land ownership. It is an illusion

Yours, you must admit, is a bizarre view. Rights are natural if they exits in absence of any legislation, that has nothing to do with naturalness of the underlying conduct. Besides, even animals have string territorial instincts, so real property rights apply to a naturally occurring behavior. That is probably too long a tangent.

As I noted in #95, all that is needed to implement property rights is a convention on posting land, or its paper equivalent -- a registry of deeds.

[annalex]

When individuals -- in this case, the owners of a corporation -- are harmed in a foreign land, our government has no duty to intervene if the individuals accepted the risk inherent in foreign investment. However, if our government chooses to act in retaliation, it would be justified as defensive application of force on behalf of its citizens. And that's what Peikoff is suggesting: if a country positions itself as our enemy in the war on terrorism, then our govenrment might just as well repossess the oil companies' property there.