AnCaps would not complain if someone committed an act of aggression and a third party (private defense agency) intervened to stop the aggressor. Why then do you oppose a state or international organization doing it? For example, what was wrong with justifying intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds?
because the state is not a voluntary organization but more like a criminal gang?
-
Doing something moral with immoral tools is not supported by most libertarians. For instance in the anarcho-capitalist framework all forcible confiscation of property is immoral. In most minarchist frameworks the same can be said about “humanitarian wars”
-
All actions, wars or otherwise, are a means to an end and have references to other values. In this case the humanitarian value of preventing large scale force and human rights abuses can only result in the end of military intervention by states if the state is actually an effective means of bringing this about. I’d argue that much of history has shown this not to be the case, see Iraq, Somalia, Israel, ECT.
Because there is no “humanitarian ground”. Even if there was it would be -for “humanitarian grounds” which would be of equal propistion you could put up there including “inhumanitarian grounds” - and more importantly “my grounds” - which in reality is the only grounds there are. The end result is, this why these things “don’t work” - because they don’t really mean anything, other than maybe a chincy psychologism or aesthetic statement. And if they do work, that’s great for “humanitarian grounds” but so what, what about “tennis shoe grounds”, “good grounds”, bad grounds" or whatever
In the “market” view there are only creative-destructive revolutionary processes which extert themselves as actual fact / force / power (i.e human action for our purpose), not "fixed ideas"like “humanitarianism” - these are just consequence of actions at best, sloppy language, or some one trying to sell you into buying their aesthetical view - which is what Nike, Mcdonalds or whoever actually do in a productive concrete way.
“AnCaps would not complain if someone committed an act of aggression and a third party (private defense agency) intervened to stop the aggressor.”
Unless they were pacifists, but most anarcho-capitalists would have no objection to your statement.
“Why then do you oppose a state or international organization doing it?”
A private defense agency is voluntarily-funded, not tax-funded. When President Barack Obama’s speech about Libya is misleading at best, many people become hesitant about getting into another war. Also, there is evidence this action is not based on humanitarian motives.
Becuase they stole my money to do so.
I dont think that there is any such thing as a just or humanitarian war, the scope of what we call war is simply too big. Waging war to protect the rights of some you must violate the rights of others, I dont see any practical way to separate the innocents and nonaggressors from the aggressors. Even if the one side is a PDA defending their clients against a hostile state or organiazation, it would be highly unlikely that the PDA could do so without violating the rights of those (who do not contract with the PDA) where the fighting is taking place. So Im not sure you could justify anything going on in Lybia through a libertarian framework.