A fellow Austrian and myself have been discussing ‘what if’ the international situation gets consistently worse and the 21st Century becomes another century of Socialism.
I’ve been thinking that the only approach would be to take a large group of Libertarians, probably with the help of a Private Military Contractor, and take over a failing state (probably an African one) with pre-existing infrastructure.
Now the question is; could or would this be considered by other Austrians as Colonialism or Imperialism? The obvious answer apears to be yes, tbh, but if it becomes impossible to recreate Libertarianism in the United States or Classical Liberalism in say, Great Britain, would it be justified to create a Libertarian state via the means I have suggested?
This is not the free state project; it is an invasion by outside forces to liberate a country, just abnormally. The question really is if it could ever be justified?
It would be colonialism in the best sense of the word, taking failed or primitive societies and transforming them into working societies.
In fact there’s no reason why you have to wait for another century of socialism to do that. You can start doing business in Africa right away. The Chinese are already doing it.
Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.
Edit: Oh, i see. Because they have no law? When i said that i was still engaged in the OP’s thought experiment about the whole world being socialist or whatever.
There’s nothing wrong with the empire’s expansionism, what’s wrong is that it attempts to impose unnatural laws on the people it adds to the empire. Those unnatural laws create social chaos.
That is the worst delusion we could possibly suffer from. Russian socialism went on for decades after everyone knew it didn’t work. The only way to defeat socialism is action.
If an invading force provides a people with a greater degree of freedom than their previous government had, what exactly is the contention?
The people of North Borneo were free-er under the white people than they were under their own leader, the Sultan of Brunei, whose domain at that time was legally recognised as most all of Borneo. He imposed arbitrary taxes (although, according to my father, paid a heavy price for trying it), disregarded the rule of law, and was generally a tyrant. The British administration was the reverse.
Isn’t it the value of a Government - if one must exist - that determines whether its rise to power is rightful, not who runs the Government or how it came to rule? I would much rather be ruled by an American libertarian who annexes Britain than a European socialist who rules it ‘democratically.’
Didn’t Mises always say that it ought to be the ends, not the means, that are examined?
Because it was an iniation of force by the spanish?
I think this depends largely on the context. Are the people of the region asking for help? What kind of invasion are we talking about? A violent military invasion that kills off the government and says “okay we’re going to have a libertarian one now people!”?
Monopolized law and defense and institutionalized theft and coercion is not something i see value in.
I can’t say I’ve ever read that, can you find a quote?
You’re right, no, I’m not. I thought it was a safe assumption to make, considering they were enroaching on the Aztecs’ territory. What exactly are you arguing here? That invading and colonizing uncivilized cultures is okay?
Why do you think I ‘believe’ in a libertarian country? And yes, monopolized law and defense and institutionalized theft and coercion are what makes a government a government. You might have a different definition of a government, in which case we may be arguing semantics.
No. It means that all governments are fundamentally immoral, regardless of their level of respect for human rights and the amount of freedom they allow.
Liberty is about respect for property rights. It is wrong to take from someone, but it is not wrong to take from no one in particular.
It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.