I don’t see why a private company ousting a State would necessary involve violations of the NAP.
It most certainly would. Starting with agression against a party, that did in no way aggressed against you.
I guess lots of trespassing will be involved as well.
One might argue that a third party has the right to intervene to stop aggression in progress. For example, if Bob is in the process of beating up Jones, Smith has the right to intervene to stop the beating even without a request from Jones; and, in any case, certainly Smith has the right to intervene at the request of Jones, acting as Jones’ agent. Likewise, a private company would have the right to intervene to halt a State’s aggression: either on its own initiative, or as the agent of some of the State’s victims.
Why do you think so?
I’m not sure its possible to wage a war, as it is conventionaly understood, without violating the NAP. Minimizing civillian casualties is not enough. In order to remain true to the NAP you could not kill or destroy the property of even one neutral third party no matter how much “good” you would be doing. The nation whose people you are trying to liberate would be full of individuals who neither want be freed from their government, join you to fight their government or wish to fight you. How do you not violate these peoples rights. How do you dislodge goverment troops from these peoples property?
I also have a bit of a problem the idea of targeted assainations. Who are we to be judge, jury and executioners. To me its not enought to simply state that surely the dictator of NK is guilty of crimes that constitute the death penalty. How do we know? Because his political enemies say so? Because he is the head of the North Korean state? How do we know he is nothing more than a puppet controlled and threatened by an unseen dictator? Should we put him on trial after the fact? In what court? Our courts? Im not sure how they could claim any legitimacy halfway round the world.
I agree with you that war in the normal sense of the word is all but impossible within the confines of the NAP: a point I’ve made many times in discussions about how an an-cap society would defend itself against foreign States. However, there are many shades of war, different intensities, different methods, depending on the nature of the parties concerned, the level of technology, the objectives, etc. I can’t say that a private company could definitely oust some existing State within the confines of the NAP, but I think it’s possible…you’d really have to get into the details on a case by case basis. Some plans might be workable, others not.
As long as the State is aggressing against any of the people, i.e. as long as it’s still a State, you would justified in using violence against it. And “it” means not only the leaders, but anyone in its service. You wouldn’t be violating anyone’s rights by using violence against natives who joined up with the government, and you certainly don’t need the support of the population in a democratic sense. Even if 99% of the population approves of the government you’d still be justified in removing it on behalf of the 1% who are being victimized - popular aggression is still aggression. As for government troops on the property of its supporters, you couldn’t dislodge them I suppose without trespassing. In a situation where a large part of the population is willing to harbor government troops, you’d be out of luck. But there might be scenarios where this is not the case, where the government is pretty well universally reviled. I think you’d find that this is the case in many of the tin pot African dictatorships. Basically, as a rule, this idea of a private company ousting a government is only going to workable (ethically and practically) if the government is fairly unpopular.
Worthwile points, but note you are talking about different things in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In paragraph 1 you are talking about dislodging and in paragraph 2 you are talking about punishing.
One might argue that a third party has the right to intervene to stop aggression in progress.
Sure, but that also got his limits.
Why do you think so?
To take out the dictator efficiently your privat army would have to pass through lot’s of land without owners consent for example.
You wouldn’t be violating anyone’s rights by using violence against natives who joined up with the government
Even this is murky. But this goes back to what you said before about the details in how the war was waged and how exactly these native who join up with the government are employed.
It is just a very dangerous course to take when you begin to justify initiating aggression against an entity who has not harmed you in any way. It’s difficult enough when you keep it on an individual level. To expand the concept to a national level increases the complexity many times over.
My default position would be to not to go out looking for monsters to slay. War is the domain of the state. Our domain is peaceful trade. Essentially, using force to overthrow governments is playing their game. I think that change could be achieved much more efficiently by simply establishing a close trading relationship.
But with that said you are right, anything is possible.
Worthwile points, but note you are talking about different things in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In paragraph 1 you are talking about dislodging and in paragraph 2 you are talking about punishing.
I am indeed talking about two different things. But only because these were presented as two diffrent ways to acheive the same end (removing governments). It just seems to me that both methods have some real problems when you try to square them with the NAP.
Yes, but what if you tried justifying targeted assassination by the need to dislodge the head of state in question, rather than to punish them?
You did not concieve the soldiers resisting the private intervention from your paragraph 1. would be fought in order to punish them, instead you thought fighting them was a technical question of dislodging them.
What if you likewise said: head of state X is engaging in rights-violation Y against his subject Z. The only way Z may bring this rights violation to an end, is to give me a ring and task me with assassinating X. Then you are assassinating X, not because you are interested in punishing him, but because you are interested in dislodging him from a position from which he continously aggresses against Z.
True, but it would stil be a very rotten thing to do for my taste.
Also what if your intervention led, not to liberation, but to a state of a bloody civil war between the “natives”? You wouldn’t necessarily be liable for any NAP violations, but simply from a point of esthetics that would be extremely shitty. What if it had been the case the super-bloody American Civil War had been sparked by an intervention from abroad, but had otherwise been fully avoidable? And lets say for good measure you had two uncles on each side who both ended up dead? Wouldn’t that make you angry with the intervening power?
Yes, but what if you tried justifying targeted assassination by the need to dislodge the head of state in question, rather than to punish them?
You did not concieve the soldiers resisting the private intervention from your paragraph 1. would be fought in order to punish them, instead you thought fighting them was a technical question of dislodging them.
What if you likewise said: head of state X is engaging in rights-violation Y against his subject Z. The only way Z may bring this rights violation to an end, is to give me a ring and task me with assassinating X. Then you are assassinating X, not because you are interested in punishing him, but because you are interested in dislodging him from a position from which he continously aggresses against Z.
Well let me back up a little bit and maybe clarify my objections. When I raised the objections it was in the context of removing an oppressive government. My problem with using the military to remove a government was a practical one of actually executing a war of liberation without collateral damage to innocent third parties. The problem here is unjustly killing people. Here I think we agree this is a real problem.
The idea of assaination was floated, as I understood, as “cutting off the head and the body will die and if a new head grows back cut it off too”. My problem with assination is the same. Is it justifiable to kill an agent of the state. Maybe, Maybe not. Is simply being an agent at any level of the state justify being killed or do you have to be at a certain level within the state. How do we know if it is just to take your life? Certainly, a simple accusation by your killer as deserving death is not enough. I would think the only way to establish if the killing was just is by trial.
My concerns in both cases are unjust killings. Intervening, uninvited, in a conflict between individuals that does not concern you is difficult enough. To broaden the scope and begin talking about a group of people intervening in a conflict between two other groups of people becomes virtually impossible. It also seems to move away from the idea of individual rights.
Maybe there are other ways to undermine and destroy an oppressive foreign state peacefully.