Over on Wendy McElroy’s message board, I have been having a running debate about libertarian ‘just war’ theory. I argued that there are no just ‘wars’, because all wars are military acts and all militaries are, as State agents, anti-liberal . Even if what they did was not in itself objectionable the very existence of a military and the State which commands it is.
It continues for three pages with a Randian evading, equivocating, apologizing and out right fantasizing both the American Revolution and the War Between the States.
Finally he accuses me of being a ‘utopian’ because I expect people allegedly fighting for freedom to maintain basic moral principles like not murdering, enslaving or stealing, at the same time implying that such action could produce freedom. He apparently never got the Objectivist memo of not compromising with evil and morality being the only practical kind of behavior.
Some wars can be more just than others. But other than that, I know of not a single truly just war, by Rothbard standard. Certainly not the two he himself mentions.
It depends what you define as war. If secession (e.g. of an individual) is war then certainly it can be just. If capturing a known criminal is war then certainly it can be just.
“My own view of war can be put simply: a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” - MNR, Just War.
“In other words, all government wars are unjust, although some governments have less unjust claims in the sense that they might have. Well, let’s put it this way, in the case of the Ruritanian-Waldavian thing, when the Ruritanians are simply taking back ethnically Ruritanian territory and the Ruritanian masses were yearning to rejoin their homeland – then libertarians, it seems to me, would say that war would then be just if the following conditions were satisfied: (1) There were no taxes imposed; (2) No innocent civilians got killed; (3) Nobody got conscripted – in other words, it was a purely voluntary fight. Obviously to meet these conditions, it would be almost impossible but there are different gradations – you know, real life wars, approaching this. A “just war” would be for all these conditions to be met.” - MNR, On War[Here’s an idea - go educate yourself as to what that “Ruritanian-Waldavian thing” is - before cracking open the ‘wannapost now fury’ aye?]
“Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all States are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world- government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable 'Third Camp” position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly “idealistic” and out-of-it sectarian a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his “pure” position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events." - MNR, War Guilt in the Middle East
Let’s say, Falkalds War vs. Franco-Prussian War. Is the first more just (would certainly seem to me to be the nearest thing to a just war in the last century), or less of a war?
“I disagree. Some conflicts are less wars than others.”
Wow, what a disconnect. So you can have less rights violations by an aggressor, but it will be the same level of just-ness no matter what aye? So Horishma is the same as cattle farmers vs. peasants?
If you’re going to go ahead & play this game, define all your terms.
All doctrines are useless in discussing any kind of conflict, which is always unique and not one bit related or similar to any other kind of conflict.
As a liberal, I am guilty of thinking in terms of such doctrines, but I find that those who try to probe seriously into the conflict itself tend to propose unfeasible solutions. Like the only way of handling the war on terror is to deport every Muslim away from US, as some people suggest. Or that Iran should be considered guilty until proven innocent and that the rest of the world should throw away the lives of its own people to do what Israelis, Iraqis, Syrians, and Turks should be handling themselves.
I and such people lie at two extremes. There is definitely the need for an intelligent middle ground - people who don’t want to uselessly provoke conflicts but who won’t hesitate to take the necessary measures when it’s clear that the interests of his own regional peoples and his family is at immediate and clear threat. That Spanish Republican Francesco Franco may have been that compromise, never mind his ruthless tactics during wartime (and after).
What is interesting, however, is that men like Francesco Franco or men like Andrew Jackson have served in war and know what a bad idea war is and use their term in office to avoid them. And these were still relatively bloodthirsty men.
“All doctrines are useless in discussing any kind of conflict”
Thank heavens Libertarianism isn’t a doctrine, but a political philosophy!
“I and such people lie at two extremes. There is definitely the need for an intelligent middle ground - people who don’t want to uselessly provoke conflicts but who won’t hesitate to take the necessary measures when it’s clear that the interests of his own regional peoples and his family is at immediate and clear threat.”
.
"One important disadvantage of a libertarian’s use of the left-right terminology is the wide-open oppportunity for applying the golden-mean theory. For some twenty centuries Western man has come to accept the Aristotelian theory that the sensible position is between any two extremes, known politically today as the “middle-of-the-road” position. Now, if libertarians use the terms “left” and “right,” they announce themselves to be extreme right by virtue of being extremely distant in their beliefs from communism. But “right” has been successfully identified with fascism. Therefore, more and more persons are led to believe that the sound position is somewhere between communism and fascism, both spelling authoritarianism.
The golden-mean theory cannot properly be applied indiscriminately. For instance, it is sound enough when deciding between no food at all on the one hand or gluttony on the other hand. But it is patently unsound when deciding between stealing nothing or stealing $1,000. The golden mean would commend stealing $500. Thus, the golden mean has no more soundness when applied to communism and fascism (two names for the same thing) than it does to two amounts in theft. The libertarian can have no truck with “left” or “right” because he regrets any form of authoritarianism — the use of police force to control the creative life of man. To him, communism, fascism, nazism, Fabianism, the welfare state—all egalitarianism—fit the definitive description that Plato, perhaps cynically, gave us centuries before any of these coercive systems were evolved:
The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war as well as in the midst of peace—to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals . . . only if he has been told to do so. . . . In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and, in fact, to become utterly incapable of it.
Ascending the Degradation
Libertarians reject this principle and in so doing are not to the right or left of authoritarians. They, as the human spirit they would free, ascend—are above—this degradation. Their position, if directional analogies are to be used, is up—in the sense that vapor from a muckheap rises to a wholesome atmosphere. If the idea of extremity is to be applied to a libertarian, let it be based on how extremely well he has shed himself of authoritarian beliefs.
Establish this concept of emerging, of freeing — which is the meaning of libertarianism—and the golden – mean or “middle-of-the-road” theory becomes inapplicable. For there can be no halfway position between zero and infinity. It is absurd to suggest that there can be." - Neither Left, Nor Right - Leonard Read
No, I just mean that warfare and militaries are things I see as being specifically State-operations. Certainly some people may happen to be in a military, and may happen to be acting defensively on the part of themselves or others. But that is only in their role as individuals, not as military men and not as ‘war’ actors. Just as a police officer can be justified in preventing someone from killing another person, but not in his role as a ‘police officer’ nor in the act of ‘enforcing the law’ but simply as an individual with the same right as any other to stop murderers.
Conza, I am not using a “left/right” divide, far from it.
Being anti-war and pro-war itself is something that divides people across any kind of common political thought.
And yet, even anti-war and pro-war is not a genuine divide, because you could oppose war for the wrong reasons, like opposing a war in favour of a new authoritarian regime. And just because we oppose war, doesn’t mean we associate with those who want authoritarian regimes either.
Let me just explain. The Winter War between Finns and Russians involved Finns taking the initiative to build pillboxes and fortifications to defend their homeland. The Russians wanted to attack. Plain and simple. The Finns just prepared for war. Unlike France, which was simply demilitarizing and disarming while making treaties with the Germans hoping to keep them happy, the Finns knew they had no terms to act on, and ordinary farmers took out their rifles and got ready to defend themselves. That’s all. A voluntary war of defense, without the overhanded retaliation that the Allies did on German cities. Would you, as a liberal, oppose the Winter War on the Finnish side?
No, I just mean that warfare and militaries are things I see as being specifically State-operations. Certainly some people may happen to be in a military, and may happen to be acting defensively on the part of themselves or others. But that is only in their role as individuals, not as military men and not as ‘war’ actors. Just as a police officer can be justified in preventing someone from killing another person, but not in his role as a ‘police officer’ nor in the act of ‘enforcing the law’ but simply as an individual with the same right as any other to stop murderers.
Than I surely agree. Concepts such as ‘war’ and the like are used for the sake of simplification, but of course every individual’s action must be judged in isolation from those of nearly everyone else, regardless of his motives for doing what he does.
That being said, such ‘wars’ must nonetheless be graded. A war, otherwise ‘spotless’, in which a single soldier kills a civilian must not be equated with WW2. Individually, what others do makes no difference but in toto, we can certainly discriminate wars by the degree of undue suffering they caused. Thinking otherwise would imply that, once the first civilian is killed, or the first dollar of taxes is used to fund the war, it no longer matters how many untold millions you maim.