Defense of Liberty: Freedom and War

Free Republic ^ | December 2, 2001 | Annalex

[annalex]

I thank everyone for the spirited discussion on these threads following the September 11 massacre. I began this article under peaceful circumstances as an abstract analysis of property rights, following Pursuit of Liberty: Right to Roam or Licence to Trespass?; the segue into the just war theory became its natural extension.

I plan to take a break from the Defense of Liberty series and will skip a few weeks. Suggestions of topics to discuss are always welcome. If you would like to be on my bump list, for the Defense of Liberty series, please let me know.

Please SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

[annalex]

Rudyard Kipling

Fuzzy-wuzzy

(Soudan Expeditionary Force)

We've fought with many men acrost the seas,
An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Sua~kim~,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.

We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu ~impi~ dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.
Then 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.

'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore;
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!

'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!
So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air --
You big black boundin' beggar -- for you broke a British square!

[PatrickHenry]

Although the Indians may go to war between themselves, and the farmers may fight for territory between themselves, the war between farmers and Indians is a war between civilizations. The difference is that both the farming civilization and the foraging civilization are complete and self-sufficient systems of property rights. No deal exists that would enable them to coexist and maintain their full sets of property rights.

Bit of a disagreement here. I would suggest that the foraging "civilization" doesn't have property rights as we know them. So there is no conflict of property rights. There is a conflict between a society that has such rights and one that doesn't recognize them at all. (Tribal territory, used by custom, isn't the same thing at as a property right.)

[annalex]

Yes, perhaps it would be clearer if "property" were omitted:

he difference is that both the farming civilization and the foraging civilization are complete and self-sufficient systems of rights.

But I would stand by the text as written. "Property" is no more that a collection of rightful actions with respect to an inanimate object. An Indian system of foraging rights, although is non-exclusive, still qualifies as property as it describes what is and what isn't rightful to do in a wilderness.

[Huck]

I would suggest that the foraging "civilization" doesn't have property rights as we know them. So there is no conflict of property rights. There is a conflict between a society that has such rights and one that doesn't recognize them at all. (Tribal territory, used by custom, isn't the same thing at as a property right.)

What is the basis of a "natural" right to property, and if it is natural, pre-existing law, then explain for me how it applies only to some human beings? I think you hang quite a lot on that phrase "as we know them." Are natural rights so completely open to interpretation that whole ways of life are beyond their scope?

[annalex]

That, basically, is the question in the article. My contention is that only the right to bargain and to self-regulate, and to engage in mutual violence under some conditions are natural rights.

[Free the USA]

Another thought provoking article. I will probably return latter with a question.

[Huck]

Well, you do a few interesting things in your article. You show property rights to be a bargain between participants of a certain civilization, less than universal. Our Founders skirted right past that one I guess. You also recognize that it is a "civilization" which will ultimately wage war to maintain its rules, which in turn define the rights of its participants to property, showing it to be something other than an individual right, in the big picture. But that is really a question of means. How does a civilization deliver for its participants the provision of property rights.

I am going to have to read carefully through this article.

[annalex]

Due to a formatting error, it is not clear that the two paragraphs beginning:

The endless local wars were not, as is believed, the doing of "robber barons" ...

War, moreover, had some civilized features -- it was a game. ...

are a quote from Barzun (with an embedded quote). The two paragraphs were supposed to be indented, and the starting quotation mark is missing.

[annalex]

Our Founders skirted right past that one [past the less-than-universality of Western property rights]

They couldn't but overlook it. A civilization can't see beyond its scope.

[Maelstrom]

Thank You

[Huck]

They couldn't but overlook it. A civilization can't see beyond its scope.

I don't know about that. I was just reading the chapter in Poor Richard's Almanac which compares indian civility to white civility. Funny passage. Written in the 1750's. Clearly looks outside its scope.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..."

They must have seen it too. George Washington was a fierce land speculator. Employed Daniel Boone to go and fight indians for him, so that he could procure more land. They evidently agreed with you, annalex, that the right to property is actually obtained by brute force.

[Justin Raimondo]

Leave it to some "libertarian" to derive the "right" of the US to a worldwide empire from a "bubble of personal space wrapped around each person." I guess the US "bubble" extends to five continents. How long before the "bubble" bursts?

[annalex]

Property is generally obtained by the ability of the individuals to defend it. A civilization allows for peaceful methods.

I take my statement in #10 back, in the sense that academically, one can visualize things beyond the horizon, but constitution-writing is not an academic exercise. It is notable that Jefferson replaced "pursuit of property" with "pursuit of happiness" in the final draft, recognizing that "property" doesn't have, academically, a clear meaning.

[annalex]

The U.S., being a collective, has no rights, other than the rights of its individual citizens. When they assert those, they, naturally, can do it worldwide.

Defense of Liberty. National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie

[Demidog]

Just authority: Only the legitimate rulers of the state may declare war.

Thus any suggestion that bin Laden's declaration of war puts us at war is false. We are not at war either as our leaders have not declared a constitutional war.

We are involved in an unjust action.

[Demidog]

The U.S. is not a collective.

[Demidog]

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't call him a libertarian. It isn't even remotely libertarian to promote Empire.

[Huck]

I take my statement in #10 back, in the sense that academically, one can visualize things beyond the horizon, but constitution-writing is not an academic exercise. It is notable that Jefferson replaced "pursuit of property" with "pursuit of happiness" in the final draft, recognizing that "property" doesn't have, academically, a clear meaning.

Hmm. I suppose you are right. I would think that at least the many Virginia land owners--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry being the most notable--fairly understood land as property, and probably thought it synonymous with happiness to own land. My point, which isn't so much a point as a musing prompted by your article (I haven't the scholarship to make points on this matter), is that those who were actively involved in taking land from the natives, must have understood in the process that a right to property is based on force; first the force to take the land, then the force to make and keep the rules that govern ownership.

Then, of course, one remembers that these same individuals not only treated the right to property inconsistently depending on your cultural makeup, they treated ALL liberty in such a way, as evidenced by the African slave trade. When I get around to studying John Adams, I will be interested to see what he may have said or written or done regarding the native American tribes.

[Huck]

There is always this:

War Powers Act of 1973

And by the way, have you ever noticed that the power of Congress to declare war and the power to repel invasions are listed separately?

From the Constitution:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Almost looks like declaring war is not always necessary for the calling forth of troops. And that is just looking at the Constitution. The War Powers Act makes it even plainer to me.