In this age of suicidal terrorists who can arm themselves with devastating weapons (truck bombs, even bona fide WMDs), it is not realistic to say that we must wait until an act of mass murder is actually launched to take action against a malefactor.
But how can we preempt devastating criminal actions without the trappings of a police state?
How can we justify taking a man’s freedom or property based only on his intentions?
In consideration of the terms of modern terrorism, it seems to me that you can’t preserve life and property without sacrificing some liberty. The only libertarian response I have gotten so far to these questions is, “Fear is the price of liberty, and I’ll gladly pay it.” Which, in contrast to most of the libertarian agenda, is not a position that I think many reasonable people will accept. So in the face of these threats is there a basis for sacrificing liberty in defense of life and property that preserves the libertarian spirit – i.e., that does NOT expose us to a slippery slope that might encompass every other form of government we have seen and detest?
What you really mean by “How can a free society protect itself?” is “How can I coerce other people into doing what I believe is necessary for my protection?”
Ok, Abdul drives a bomb-truck into a school, Mark breaks into a school with an FN Minimi, what is the difference aside from the fact that Abdul is foreign and “muslim” and Mark is local and “christian”? The Neo-Con answer is that one is a terrorist and one is a murderer. But they’re wrong. They are both terrorists and they are both murderers.
Here’s the deal: even with cameras on every street corner, bugs in every apartment and unwarranted wiretapping of everybody, you will not have safety from terrorist attacks. Rapid technological development, the reason cited for all these police state measures, will be in constant struggle with any protection mechanism the state tries to implement, and at some point be able to outcompete it. Boom, then.
In the meantime, however, you have sacrificed your liberty for the false security of the state. By doing so, you’ve added a much more dangerous enemy to your list than a terrorist who is pretty much limited to operating within a costly and risky black market: the omnipotent state. Remember, the state is able to tax as much wealth out of you as it desires, it has a monopoly on force, it has shown its ability to secretly imprison, enslave and execute millions countless times in the 20th century only.
If you think it won’t happen here, you’re wrong.
So I don’t see how your desire for security can in any way be reconciled with the means and ends of state governance.
OK, I used too many loaded terms. They don’t have to be terrorists. They don’t have to be suicidal.
Granted, there will always be lone psychopaths that can’t be found or stopped until they snap and actually do something. Forget those cases.
Let me rephrase the question: Throughout the world there are small groups of people who would like to effect mass murder for various purposes – not all of them justifiable. Some of them broadcast their intentions ahead of time. Others try to conceal them. We know that there are “police state” measures that will deter or halt some of these plots. When and what measures are permissible to deter or halt plots to commit mass murder? Or is no threat great enough, no danger sufficiently clear and present, that people are justified in depriving someone of his liberty until he has actually committed a crime, no matter how horrific?
Let’s take a step back and imagine a libertarian utopia in which a man freely declares that he hates the world and that he would like to kill everyone and let god sort out the mess. Thought is not a crime, nor is speech. Now suppose that he goes down to the local industrial supply counter and picks up a bunch of detonators. Can we do anything? Now he goes to the local farm supply warehouse and fills a truck with ammonium nitrate. Still OK? Now in broad daylight he puts the detonators in oil-soaked AN and parks the truck in front of a church just beginning Sunday services. How about now? You shouldn’t be surprised when he detonates that truck bomb, and it’s not just the people in that church who would say that any government or group of people would have been fully justified in putting a stop to this chain of events a little earlier – indeed, most people would demand that we collectively maintain some sort of security apparatus to protect against such a clear and present danger. And I don’t think libertarians will get a lot of sympathy by saying, “No, you’re mistaken, the cost and risk to freedom of even a modicum of security is not worth its potential in averting mass destruction.”
Now, if you can draw a line in this chain at which we are justified in obstructing this guy’s liberty, or taking his property, let’s try a few other cases: What if two guys embark on this plot, and there is some “police state” technology with which we can detect the plot even earlier, because instead of it being in one guy’s head there is some overt communication on the subject?
Oh, and is a truck bomb not compelling enough? How about a small group of guys who conspire to build a nuclear bomb and detonate it in a population center?
If protecting oneself from ‘terrorism’ is indeed possible, then it will be done by individual humans and the institutions that they accept. I think the main thrust of the question is akin to asking ‘how will a free society provide bread’. Really, if you accept the economics, you don’t even need to answer that. The question demands one to know what the market solution in a future situation would amount to. But this is impossible.
In a libertarian society, if someone in my town said he wanted to destroy humanity and threatened to kill people, he wouldn’t get as far as you’ve described. He would be refused goods or just shot dead.
With all of the motive in the world, people aren’t nuking US cities (let’s face it, Americans do stick their noses and gun barrels in everywhere they don’t belong). So now in a stateless society, where no one has the power to invade another, let alone occupy them with an army, you think people are going to build nukes and such to terrorize people?
Who will you terrorize if you blow up the libertarian town of Wichita? They will all be dead. They have no connection per se with Dallas, or New York. You might as well blow up Spokane or Naples. It just doesn’t make any sense.
I kinda feel for you. You seem to be going through the pains of purging yourself of statism. Been there.
It’s funny because stateless societies are, in a sense, like the market, impersonal and faceless. There is no person in the state, as there is right now. Just many free individuals interacting under many possible arrangements of their own choosing. A state to weld together disparate interests and force them to accept it as their mask will no longer exist.
I too am going through the purging process - I have one question relating to this topic. If, for example, a country ‘converts’ and becomes a true market economy - what’s to stop their neighbour, who is still operating under statism, invading? Presumably their military force would be superior as they would have far more resources dedicated to that industry.
Is this something that has to be implemented on a global level to have a chance of working?
Some probably would, but then again some wouldn’t as everyone can choose for themselves. Some may underestimate the threat and under-spend, I doubt they would have perfect knowledge of their neighbours.
Hence wouldn’t it be likely that a state-run military, where all of their resources are pooled for the sole purpose of invasion, would overrun this ‘free’ society? Wouldn’t it be like a well-drilled team playing a team of individuals in football?
I’m just curious, some clarification would be nice.
… and you seem to have lost touch with the reality of a world full of human beings. There are plenty of people who do not behave in accordance with mainstream reason. “It just doesn’t make any sense” is often the sentiment that follows random acts of mass murder, but that doesn’t stop such acts from being attempted. You cannot simply assert that in a stateless libertarian utopia random acts of violence will cease.
For as long as there have been powerful weapons groups of people have tried to acquire WMDs, and many of those groups have in fact launched attacks using less destructive weapons. I hesitate to bring the loaded word “terrorism” back into the mix, but that’s what we have typically called attacks that aim to destroy large groups of people who have not directly done anything to the attackers.
For those who don’t believe it’s realistic for an individual to build a truck bomb and detonate it, please see here. (If you sympathize with terrorists, please don’t bother to comment. Psychopaths can always draw some connection between an injustice they have perceived and some group of people. And libertarians in general should not accept the fact that individuals who have been subjugated by a government are responsible for that government’s actions.)
For those who say, “people who care and private enterprise will find a way,” that’s sort of the point of my question. The solutions that people around the world have found work to detect and defuse mass murder plots involve “invading privacy” and curtailing the rights of individuals that have not actually committed a crime. So fine, let’s put ourselves in a libertarian utopia. Can I form a corporation to protect my neighborhood against random acts of violence that evesdrops on people who have not consented to its work, or that detains people and takes property based on potential but unrealized threats?
Well, I can assert it, but I don’t believe I did. I merely questioned your example, which did not seem to be grounded in reality. America was attacked one time, and even that, 30 some % of Americans, don’t believe the official story about that. So this notion that there is a constant terror threat, doesn’t seem to me, to be more than propaganda by the state. Compound that with Prof. Robert Pape’s reserearch (he does research for the Pentagon) at the Chicago center on Suicide Terrorism, and I’m led to believe, that a stateless society would dramatically decrease suicide terrorism, simply because (1) there would be less or little motive, and (2) it would be very hard to pick a target.
The definition of terrorism, is political violence against non-combatants. If you eliminate formalized politics, you seriously compromise the motive for political violence.
The American government perpetrates more terrorism than any other government or group in world history. If you sympathize with the American government, I would say you are a terrorist sympathizer. Just something to keep in mind.
It’s getting a little annoying how you keep using libertarian utopia as though that is something any of us propose. We’re mostly big kids here. No one is promising you happiness. We’re promising you an opportunity to be free, and to make the most of that. If you’re not interested in freedom, then libertarianism is not for you. Period. No one is so foolish as to think that anarchy would be a lack of violence, only that there would be no monopoly on violence, and hence no single point of failure (or attack) and hence, very little if any terrorism.
Think about this for a minute, because it is pretty neat.
Imagine say, Italy. Total anarchy. Basically no political unit bigger than a suburb.
Now imagine Germany invades. Who will they fight? What will they try to capture? How will they communicate their leadership to the Italians? How will they know who is in Italy?
Simply, there is no state infrastructure to take over.
Then imagine that an anarchist or libertarian society is likely an armed one. Then consider that libertarians are not peaceniks, we’re actually going to have some kickass weapons, like Uncle Cletus’ shoulder fired rocket launcher, and Aunt Bee’s microwave cannon. If we don’t own them, we will probably contract a firm (could be an internal group of citizens) to purchase, maintain and be experts with such weapons.
Again, you have to go to the motives for invading. Sure, you get ideological nutjubs like Bush or Hitler, but if you go deeper, there are usually economic reasons why these guys had the leeway and power they did. What is the economic incentive to conquer peaceful people who would be very expensive to rule, and fight you every step of the way?
Btw, it only takes a couple nukes to keep the bad guys at bay. In the nuclear age, no one messes with a nuclear power. Not in a formal invasion type sense.
Sorry, substitute “ideal libertarian conditions” when I say “libertarian utopia.”
I agree that a libertarian state would likely reduce acts of terrorism. (However it would also increase the facility for any individual to perpetuate random acts of mass murder.)
Back to my original question: Given the ease with which an individual or small group can commit random mass murder, and given that any population contains individuals disposed to such acts, I don’t believe most people would accept the libertarian proposition if it provides no reasonable means for protecting them against such a risk. So can people exercise any measures of prevention or deterrance against random mass murder without infringing the principles of libertarianism?