Hi
This is an area I’m trying to obtain some clarity on at the moment. i.e. the proper place of the application of international law.
What is the general position from a libertarian standpoint on this? Is it acceptable so long as the principles of a free society are followed? Does a libertarian society completely do away with the need for international law.
I’m aware that the US is involved in an illegal war in Libya and that they have proceeded to justify the intervention on the basis of a UN resolution.
What are the libertarian arguments against this?
Jim
Free Market Oriented folks do not believe in the legitimacy of Legislated Laws (Edicts really) enforced through force that destroy freedom but only in the Natural Laws that enhance it. The problem is one of means, that is governments steal wealth and destroy freedom to preserve wealth and enhance freedom. This applies to the entire world as it does to the smallest municipality. Furthermore, Free Market Oriented folks are skeptical of government at all levels and especially of government at the national or super-national levels. So is there a place for international law? Yes provided it comes from the sponetaenous order created by people conducting commerce AND NOT from a supergovernmental agent of force using stolen money as its means.
The illegal, immoral and overly expensive massacre the USA and its slave states are conducting in Lybia is a great example of the horrible nature of super-governmental institutions like the UN. The UN created by nations whose first act was to charter in their own little veto powers really has no power of its own and is really a puppet of the veto powered nations.
I agree with what bogart said.
However, if a nation has to exist, then it should be confederal and have very few enumerated powers and a super majority being necessary to execute those powers is a good idea as is unanimous consent of the memberstates being required to amend.
States should all be isolated from each other (i.e., “free and independent”), or at least as much as possible as there is no proper place for international law such as the ICC as far as libertarians are concerned. The more states are independent and the more there is confederalism in those independent state, the more freedom of trade and movement there is. The larger a government, the more difficult it is to secede from it and there is more arbitrariness (more 3rd parties) in international law.
While self-sovereignty is ideal as Bogart pointed out, many confederal states that are completely independent from each other is 2nd best, then national sovereignty, then one world government. However, the last two are unacceptable to any libertarian.
We may be operating under different definitions of government…
I think the OP possibly could extend “government” to “an agency which protects rights”, though I generally prefer one of “an agency which has fundamental inherent powers of compulsion”.
In any case, isn’t there a place for global “inherent” or “natural” rights? Self-ownership, contract, and NAP, for example.
Furthermore, because Libya was mentioned:
The idea that the US government is wrong in aiding the rebels stems from the idea that the government operates under a social contract, which it doesn’t. The Constitution was approved ages ago, and not by the people. Anyway, libertarians tend to believe that social contracts of the majority cannot take away natural rights of the minority, so either way, no social contract here.
Why do I say this? Because there is the idea that the US government spans only over the US. This is an interesting concept. Since we’ve already eliminated the idea of the social contract, why limit the coverage of the government like this. Government (as an agency which protect rights and establishes justice) ought to be universal (if running under the correct principles). Thus, it may be that the US government’s responsibility is not only to its own people, but to any people. If a government is the “correct” libertarian government, then it is the system that ought to exist, and therefore the only completely just system (if such a thing may exist). Therefore, why would it not have the power to stop offenses against human rights that go on elsewhere? Of course, the government is not this great all-just power, but still, the argument applies. We are assuming a geographical limit to the extent of a government while no one has made an argument as to why this is so.