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

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.

Territorial "rights" are not the same thing as ownership. Yes, animals defend territory but territory is temporary in nature. I don't find my views all that bizarre. They are shared by every native American tribe and virtually all tribal peoples around the world and are not in conflict with libertarian views in my opinion. The libertarian view is founded on one principle: The recognition that the initiation of aggression is wrong.

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.

And there is absolutely nothing "natural" about that. Any right which requires a beaurocracy to manage, private or otherwise, is not natural.

If my rights are violated I can justifiably retaliate across the national border if necessary.

Knock yourself out. Just don't do it on my dime.

If you accept that premise, then you should admit that I can also commission my goverment to do the retaliating for me.

No I shouldn't. That would necessarily enlist the resources of people who weren't harmed by the action and who might be put in harms way due to the un-necessary and unlibertarian retaliation by a government on behalf of a "special citizen."

Rights of self defense have nothing to do with national jurisdiction, -- unless you think that the right of self defense is also government-given.

Strawman. The corporation has all the right in the world to defend itself. It simply doesn't get to use my money to do so. That's an anathema to libertarianism. The government is not in place to defend the rights of individuals around the world. It's place is to protect the rights of citzens within its jurisdiction. Arabia is not within its jurisdiction. If a private citizen is harmed in another country, then he can address his grievance with that country and even attempt to obtain the voluntary assistence of his fellow citizens. He may not coerce their support by demanding the government retaliate on his behalf because he is the only person receiving the benefit of such retaliation.

The proper response in this case are letters of Marque. Not military aggression.

I don't know why in the world you think such would be either constitutional or libertarian. It violates many tenets of libertarianism. The military is for the defense of our borders. Period.

I didn't make myself clear in 103, which was made in the context of #100, where I draw certain line at the national border -- but not the same line that you draw.

Let me restate.

Inside the national border my government has a duty to protect me. Outside of the national border my government has no such duty. But if it chooses to protect me, it is justified in using unlimited force.

There are two issues here.

(1) Is retaliatory use of force justified across national border? The answer is clearly yes, regardless of whether the victim retaliates himself, commissions other private parties, or commissions the government.

(2) Is the government justified in acting on a private citizen's request? To answer that we need to look into the nature of the harm done to the citizen, -- there is no single answer. When government inaction would prompt further violence -- as it would if our government doesn't respond to the terrorist attack -- then the government not only may retaliate, but also must retaliate. When the action would be bailing out a private commercial interest -- such as when Exxon's property is nationalized somewhere -- then the government should not use the taxpayers' money and put lives in danger by retaliating, although it still may retaliate. Looking back at the past 50 years I, together with Peikoff, think that the retreat by the West from the imperialist or colonialist positions it once held,-- such as the cedig of the oil interests, -- was a strategic mistake not because it victimized Exxon, but because that retreat planted the seeds of today's misery in Africa and Asia, as well as the Twin Center massacre.

With respect to some Arab countries we may have a situation when a military action is justified because of 9/11. So the dilemma arises: if retaliation is justified by one reason, terrorism, -- can the government take care of another injustice and repossess the oil company properties at the same time? The answer is yes, because the government has the opportunity to retaliate for the acts of terror and repossess the goods at no additional cost.

To answer that we need to look into the nature of the harm done to the citizen, -- there is no single answer.

And yet you go on to equate apples and oranges. It is never ok to retaliate on foreign soil with the taxpayer-funded military for the advantage or protection of a single citizen.

Retaliating on foreign soil with a military action for terrorist acts is debatable regarding its efficacy. But an action which is born from a desire to protect the nation from terrorist acts is not acting merely on the behalf of a private individual.

Going to war because an oil company's property has been confiscated in another country is clearly not based on libertarian values.

Not even close.

If it is OK to punish criminals domestically at taxpayers' expense for the protection of a single citizen, then it is equally OK to retaliate on foreign soil for the same.

No it is not the same. Because everyone in the country pays and expects protection from criminals (not that they get it).

One cannot expect to go abroad and receive protection from the United States and one cannot expect retaliation. Otherwise every mugged American in Paris could bring down war on the Country of France. Absurd.

Furthermore, the only authorization in the Constution for the use of our military is to repel invasions, enforce federal laws and put down insurrection. End of list.

If I get mugged in Paris and the French police fails to defend me, I can ask the US government to retaliate. The retaliation of the US government would be morally justified.

Ridiculous. Commit an act of war in response to a mugging? Surely you cannot be serious.

I don't know why you pretend that this is libertarian. You can't even sue your own government for failing to protect you. Most certainly our government cannot initiate an act of aggression because some other government fails to protect you.

The government's job is not to protect you in such circumstances. You are responsible for your own personal defense and the government has ZERO responsibility to extend your personal protection zone across the sea into another country.

If this were true, then it would be far cheaper (and if your logic is correct this would be an acceptable and reasonable remedy) for our government to send armed military units to accompany you on your travels.

No, you're wrong. Exxon's troubles are Exxon's troubles. Not mine and most certainly not the U.S. government.

You objection is based on the cost of retaliation, or perhaps on the lack of proportion between mugging and war. I agree that it would be ridiculous to retaliate with war for my getting mugged in Paris; but it would be morally justified for our government to retaliate in a commensurate way if the French government for some reason fails to do so. When our government determines that such protection cannot be extended to a particular country, it issues a warning that every American citizen traveling to that country does so on his own risk.

After the "student revolution" in Iran, our embassy was taken hostage, and EDS (Ross Perots' company) employees were taken hostage. Our government responded by sending the helicopters on an ill-fated raid, and Perot responded by successfully freeing his men by force. When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them. All these were justified instances of application of force by our government to protect our citizens abroad. Or do you disagree?

According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere. In the civilized world, our government can delegate that job to other national governments. If a national government fails to protect our citizens, our government is justified in responding; the only remaining question is the degree and manner of response.

perhaps on the lack of proportion between mugging and war.

Yes. It's a basic common law principle. If you come at me with your fists, I may not respond with a gun. (In general)

I agree that it would be ridiculous to retaliate with war for my getting mugged in Paris; but it would be morally justified for our government to retaliate in a commensurate way if the French government for some reason fails to do so.

Again. Not so. The reason being twofold. One, your government is not responsible for you. It is not responsible for keeping you safe. It is only responsible for bringing your attacker to justice. And it can only do this within it's territorial jurisdiction. Two, the act of a government sanctioned retaliation which is not co-operative with the other government in question, is an act of war and thus puts all Americans at risk of an escalated war with the country in question.

When our government determines that such protection cannot be extended to a particular country, it issues a warning that every American citizen traveling to that country does so on his own risk.

This is true always. Any other belief is sheer folly. And these warnings are not about whether or not the U.S. can extend protection they are about our diplomatic relations with these countries. If relations have deteriorated and the government there is non-responsive, the warnings are issued.

Perot's actions were justified. Carter's were not.

When our medical students were endangered in Grenada subsequent to a coup there, Reagan sent in the marines to free them.

And this was not a proper use of the military. The military is authorized to protect us from an invasion. It is not the citizen's bodyguard abroad.

According to libertarianism the government has no other role but to protect its citizens, everywhere.

According to what brand of libertarianism? Can you please provide a cite for this? Because if that's really libertarianism, I need to find myself a new label. Under the libertarianism I have read about and studied, individuals are responsible for themselves and only agree to government for a few things one of which is national defense.

You are not entitled to anything that you aren't willing to provide for yourself. If you hand over your responsibility to some government agency then you have made a bad choice.

The government is responsible for bringing the attackers to justice regardless of national jurisdiction. If the national government (e.g. French, when I've been mugged in Paris) won't do what is expected of it, then our government needs to weigh the need to ensure justice through retaliation against the possibility of an escalated conflict. For trivial offenses suchas muggings in Paris it won't do it, and for serious offenses, such as nationalization of American property, it should at least consider retaliation.

You say that Perot's actions were justified and elsewhere you supported (as I do) the use of letters of marque and reprisal to retaliate. But you say that Carter's action wasn't justified; why? If it is proper for the government to subcontract its warmaking role to private parties, then it is equally proper to just use the regular military.

In some scenarios that we discussed, real and imaginary, a foreign government failed to rectify, or retaliate for, a violation of an American's natural right. In others, a foreign government was itself an offender. So, in all these cases, it is the foreign government that escalates the conflict to an inter-governmental level. For example, Exxon can buy its own fencing and hire bodyguards, but if a national government passes a "law" by which it expropriates Exxon, then Exxon can't provide justice for itself and its relaince on our government is proper.

You may have to look for a political label. Libertarianism opposes initiation of force. Sounds familiar? Libertarianism then allows defensive and retaliatory force.

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.
Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force.
Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy."

Libertarianism then believe that

[...] The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force.

(all quotes are from Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy

One major criticism of libertarianism comes from communitarians. Communitarians believe that communities, first of all, nations, have special rights. Libertarians often ignore things like national culture or sovereignty. For a debate on that, see Pursuit of Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism

Many of your statements on this thread, regarding in particular your concern for national borders, is distinctly communitarian, while your general dislike of American profit-seeking abroad is often seen on the left.

libertarian principle that would have a particular government's jurisdiction to protect it's citizens extend worldwide.

That't the thing, that libertarians principles all plain ignore national borders. I am sure you are familiar with the libertarian pro-immigration view. What is it based on? On the assumption that borders are immaterial.

I don't know what your views on capitalism are. I mentioned your disdain for profit-seeking abroad. I could have mentioned the notion that real property rights are given by the state. Both views have been used by the left to condemn capitalism in principle.

www.infowars.com

From The Alex Jones Show 10/10/01

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW -- 2ND HOUR OF THIS 3 HOUR MP3 FILE ARCHIVE OF THE ALEX JONES SHOW 10/10/01

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS:

David Shippers: Government Had Prior Knowledge

Key Points:

(1) The FBI knows another terrorist attack is being planned, right now, for somewhere in Oklahoma City (site unknown)

(2) The FBI has been, and still is, prohibiting their agents or local police from taking known terrorists into custody.

(3) An Iraqi terrorist cell was involved in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and is still involved.

(4) Ashcroft and members of Congress are not listening.

(5) Contact your members of Congress and ask them WHY?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

a cite for the libertarian principle

How about from Ayn Rand herself:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. 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 (pg. 122).

From Ayn Rand, Collectivized Rights (quoted from here)

You still fail to meet the objective.

France, for instance, is not a dictatorship.

And still, the reason Rand says that a dictatorship is an outlaw among nations has nothing to do with the maltreatment of any individual American corporation or citizen. (And for the sake of brevity we'll assume that the first person country is always the U.S.)

It has to do with the fact that everyone in that nation is a slave to the dictator. How smart is it to do business with such a nation? How much sympathy for that boneheaded capitalist do you think Rand would give?

Because it would be utter nonsense to attempt to do business in a dictatorship. And the suggestion that a nation can go to war for a grievance of a single citizen or corporation throws personal responsibility out on its ear (and libertarianism as well which bases much of its philosophy in the principles of personal responsibility).

I'd say the Founders were even more brilliant than Rand because they imagined a way to get at such rogues using letters of Marque. This limited the possibility of harming citizens or putting them at risk for war because they were voluntary actions of private individuals in retaliation for a harm caused by such a rogue nation. And I endorse that method wholeheartedly because it meets every objective in my estimation that is worthy for such a situation. Consequently the polar opposites of these 4 items are exactly why I oppose a national war effort for such grievances as you have laid out.

1. It costs the taxpayer no money and thus coerces no individual into supporting something he doesn't want to support.

2. It is not a state-executed action and thus limits risk to the nation issuing the letter while at the same time also benefits no one citizen more than another.

3. It can be directed at private individuals.

4. All those acting under letters of Marque are volunteers and because of their bond must act in accordance with the law (other than the fact that they have been issued a license to steal).

If you'll allow a digression, while I might agree with Rand in the quote you present, I think that rescuing the citizens of a dictatorship with a national action is like welfare both figuratively and literally. Those people need to rescue themselves. It's the only way for them to become strong.

Both Rand and I say that the decision to intervene should be based on two facts: (1) that the foreign government does not protect natural rights; and (2) it is in our national interest. If France fails to protect individual natural rights (e.g. by failing to punish the muggers) then, in a therotical extreme, it becomes a rogue nation meeting test 1. If protection of American citizen assets abroad becomes a form of corporate welfare, then our intervention would fail test 2. But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest. So, an equally good argument can be made for intervention in Arabistan just for the oil interests.

Now, of course, we have some retaliating to do for a clear-cut case of mass murder. Any form of military intervention in the countries involved (none has a representative form of government) would meet both Rand's tests.

I will post the article that puts the Rand's quotes in context in a munite. You may want to carry the discussion over there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.