Okay, so I was having a debate with a fellow the other day about this and he made me think a little more about this situation. The thing is, the North did attack the south, and would have won if it wasn’t for the US. Now, if they had have won we almost certainly would have seen at best, starvation on a massive scale and at worst, well who knows. Gulags, secret police, the works…
So, what are your thoughts on this? Almost every libertarian bone in my body says the US should not have gotten involved, however the alternatives seem to be even worse from a libertarian standpoint, namely countless ‘individuals’ robbed of the life and/or property…
I think it is a tough one, the toughtest of recent history maybe. Thanks for your feedback.
The individuals that make up the ‘state’ of North Korea draw a lot of their power from pronouncing the threat of foreign aggression. What if’s are tough, but as long as we look at it from the Broken Window perspective our judgement should be okay - Still in this situation, the most desirable of undesirables would be to avoid conflict in the first place, and if there must be conflict, end it as soon as one possibly can.
I was once believed that all of the horrible things you mention would have occurred in South Korea if the US had not fought in Korea and remained there. I understand that not all comparasions work, but when I look at what happened in Vietnam, I am less sure. While Vietnam suffered for a long time after the US was forced out, it, the entire country, is now a trading partner with the United States. Some describe it as having a great deal in common with western civilizations. Vietnam has room to improve, but it is a marginal friend with the US and a trading partner. After being in Korea for more than fifty years, South Korea lives in fear of attack from the north and North Korea is considered an enemy (axis of evil and all that). An enemy with growing nuclear power. This is somewhat simple, but I think there are some parallels between the two situations. We were forced out of one and now have a friend. We use force to remain in the other and have a hated enemy.
What if this could not be done though? the North, after all, did attack…and now the South has a market based economy with a reletively high level of prosperity and freedom. Now I assume, as per my experience, that as soon as things get difficult a libertarian (and I myself am one) will just start saying “ah, we can’t deal in counter-factual history” but I think this is more often than not a method of avoiding difficult questions…
So, if one grants that a totalitarian/communist controlled South Korea would be worse off on an individual level than it is now, then what argument is there against the US ‘police action’. It hurts me to even consider defending the empire but given the inevitable catastrophe(s), both humanitarian and economic, that would be caused by the North’s victory, I still don’t hear a practical argumetn against the US’s involvement.
Don’t get me wrong, I can’t think of one other intervention I would even consider backing, but this one seems a little more justifiable. The US did prevent the spread of a murderous, totalitarian regime to an area that now prospers as a result of this. What can be better for the individual liberties of South Koreans but that?
I think North Korea is more complicated in it’s lack of flourishing. Trade Sanctions can’t help. China trades with them on the basics such as oil and food, and China says they do this to keep North Korea somewhat stable. So then one could argue China should stop trading with them and make the sanctions actually work (cause they aren’t as long as China trades with them). Also the U.S. Empire isn’t particularly friendly. U.S. can have thousands of nukes but North Korea can’t and North Korea is threatened with possible retalition by surrounding countries when Japan and South Korea keep on saying, along with U.S., Europe, and the UN, that it is unacceptable that North Korea can test nukes. So if it is unacceptable, then what’s that mean? War? It’s on many people’s minds. Coercion is a disaster setting up all kinds of confusing, irrational situations. Coercion by all parties North, South, U.S., Japan, Russia, etc…
Coercion makes it all mucky and brings out the worst in people in my opinion. All this cornering of North Korea makes me think of a rabid dog pushed into a corner - only makes 'em meaner. Hardly anybody talks to the North. Many of the North Koreans might even think the world is a miserable place to live and I wouldn’t blame 'em for thinking that way. Imagine we can walk into any store and buy food. North Koreans go through periodic mass starvations. It’s really a sad example of human failings due to lack of reason (by the world at large, not just the North).
Anyone who wants to send their own money to South Korean fighters, or go to South Korea to fight in the war should be free to do so. Should the state force people to do either? The libertarian position is no.
It is worth noting that what North Korea attempted isn’t much different from what Abraham Lincoln did, yet I’m sure your friend believes Lincoln was a hero.
This is an interesting one, I always thought that WWII was the “best” example of why we need wars, I don’t know much about Korea, I chose to study Vietnam and the World Wars instead for my high school exams. However, I’ve shifted my stance regarding war, I’m not really against war in principle anymore since I think that entails some problematic consequences, but I just don’t think the government can acheive its aims in this regard as it can’t in any other.
The thing is though, if you look at the USA now in Iraq you’ll see that the US is having a difficult time trying to control the situation. This is the USA we’re talking about who have the ability to rob half the world through inflation of the dollar and still have people willing to buy up its debt. Then there’s the huge levels of taxation going on at home (and keep in mind, the US is relatively wealthy) that allow it sustain its war machine. I can’t imagine that North Korea, being a communist country (and thus being somewhat impoverished) would be able to keep control of the South for long, just like the USA wasn’t making any progress into Vietnam.
I would still like to squeeze some kind of answer out of you guys. It seems like we have a few different opinions here (although noone seems to want to state them explicitly, and I don’t blame you, this is why I think it’s a difficult question).
The main thread seems to be that the US should have stayed out and let the North invade. This however seems like a horrific alternative to what turned out relatively well. Can we as lebertarians really condone communism, totalitarianism, mass starvation, etc, etc so easily? Maybe it is not condoning it but it is definately allowing it to happen.
One the choice is between the property rights of the aggressors or the millions of victims then surely we have to choose the victims…?
I’m still puzzled by this question…
ps:
I think this is clearly untrue. I mean I wish it were true such that the facts never have to come into conflict with the theory however more people have died under the north’s rule than died in the entire conflict, both sides. Now if the North had won the loss of life through starvation, concentration camps, etc would have been nothing short of staggering.
However, if people can’t agree with that, maybe I should add a little assumption, namely; ‘given that US involvement in the Korean war saved many lives on net’. then, is it possible for a libertarian to justify thier intervention?
Or the U.S. could have stayed out of it, we could have opened up unrestricted trade with them, eventually the people would have become much more wealthy and over-thrown their oppressive government, and they would now be living in a much more free and prosperous society.
Good heavens! Vietnam has had a horrible time under communism since the US left. As many as two million dead and millions having fled the country in open boats. All those people in “reeducation” camps for all those years. As for Korea, there can be no question that South Korea is better off than it would have been if we hadn’t fought their war with them. Just look at that famous Rumsfeld map of the Korean peninsula at night.
The relevant question from a libertarian standpoint is not will some foreign country be better off if we go fight for their cause. Clearly in some cases they will. The relevant question is should we be in the business of drafting and taxing our citizens against their will in order to go around the world making foreigners better off.
And thus my point. If people want to exchange, then coercion to stop exchanging is unhelpful. And I’m talking about free market exchanges not the statist mangling of exchanges.
So I’m thinking that one bright spot in the north might be the new N. Korean leaders home as that’s where Kim Jong-il may live. I’m only guessing that’s where Kim Jon-il lives, but I wouldn’t say it’s an aweful guess.
"Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s supreme leader, has designated his youngest son as his heir continuing the line of succession in the world’s only communist dynasty, South Korean media has reported.
According to the South’s Hankook Ilbo newspaper recent communications to North Korean diplomatic missions have been told to pledge their loyalty to Kim Jong-un, 26, although there has been no indication of when a transfer of power can be anticipated.
Little is known about Kim Jong-un other than that he was educated in Switzerland."
Wrong. We have no idea what it would be like if the U.S. had stayed out of it and had unrestricted trade. The U.S. sends foreign military aid to Vietnam and does not have unrestricted trade with them, so it is not a valid comparison.
We have a very good idea. Trade between the US and the eastern block countries was mainly restricted by their communist governments. Our restrictions were mostly limited to things of military value. Those governments didn’t allow anything resembling “trade” within their borders, let alone trade between their citizens and foreigners.
The economic improvements in Vietnam happened only after the collapse of communism in the USSR caused them to rethink their dogma.
As for Korea, I can only point once again to that map.
There are two paradigms for how to ‘wage a war’ to protect South Korea from the North.
put your troops in a space at the border, set up defensive positions, aim your turrets at where the enemy might come from, and have aircraft on standby to straffe incoming attacks.
throw your troops at the enemy, and invade their countryside and some cities. own em’ . make em sue for peace. etc etc.
both ways would seem to fill the purpose of keeping the South free, but one is clearly more ‘just’, more ‘libertarian’ than the other, can you tell which?
##edited to include scare qoutes around “wage a war”
