Can you help me build a list of wars , battles,conflicts and foreign interventions libertarians should reject as contrary to their principles.I know we’ll need to focus on the maor or well known ones or the list will be endless.
(update: also include the more ‘justified’ side in the libertarian view)
Ones I’ve come up with are:
Boer war-first and second (first: as far as I can tell passes 1,3 and 4 from boer’s perspective.fails on point 2.)
napoleonic wars
WW1 & WW2
seven year war
irish confederate wars?
recent Iraq/Aghanistan war
vietnam war
Korean war
gulf war
opium wars - british war to force china to accept opium .Was an example of what is called ‘free trade imperialism’(I hate that phrase).
Operation cyclone
phillipine- american war - both sides fail point 3.US fails on 2, 3(concentration camps) and 4.Phillippine’s appear to fail on point 2.
Taiping rebellion?
Mau Mau uprising -innocents killed on both sides but the british were the most brutal.
second anglo-afghan war
kosovo war
Battle of mogadishu - british attempt to impose state.I can’t be sure if the Kenyans conducted themselves properly.
Crimean war
Falklands war
American ‘civil war’ - funded by taxes on both sides.Made use of conscription.The south were the least guilty out of the two sides.
American revolutionary war -Inflationary war funded by taxes on both sides and made use of conscription on US side.The Americans were the least guilty out of either side.
French revolution
Anglo -zulu war (british fail on all counts except point 1.Zulus pass 1 and 4. I believe they fail point 2 and 3.)
Suez canal invasion -After Nationalization of canal ,the british wanted to control it once more.
Irish war of independence? - both sides fail 2 and 3( 750 civilians dead.) Irish pass 1 and 4 .British fail on all 4 counts.
war of spanish succession
Russian revolution.
Bosnia
update: It seems necessary to explain my criteria.I have set the buy high but it’s fair because all of the criteria fits with libertarian principles.
the criteria is :-
Is unjust if all sides involved used conscription.If one side used consciption while another didn’t they pass this criteria and move onto others.
Is unjust if was funded by taxation. If one side used taxation while another didn’t it passes this point.
Is unjust if innocents not involved in the conflict/battle/war etc were harmed.If no innocents were harmed then it passes this point.
Is unjust if fought for any reason other than national defense.Unjust motives for wars include ‘collective security’, imperialism,wars of aggression ,entangling alliances etc.
If a conflict /war etc passes ALL of these criteria it is just.
if it cannot pass a single point it is unjust.
I know this means rejecting most wars throughout history.that is acceptable.
What are you talking about here? Why name stuff like the Philippine–American War? That was a perfectly justifiable war - from the Filipino point of view. The same for Boer, Zulu, Irish, Iraq wars.. To be anything but rejected.
Wouldn’t a more worthwhile project be to name which faction in any given war is more ‘justifiable’ under the libertarian perpective?
i.e. A libertarian would be more likely to support the Patriots versus the Loyalists in the American Revolution War, and the Confederates in the American Civil War.
And more generally, most of these wars have had at least one side fighting justly. So, I’d take away all the conflict you mention in which irregular forces where involved, as irregulars generally indicate a just war.
I wouldn’t define the Falklands War as unjust, considering that the islanders explicitly demanded that the British forces protect them from the Argentinians – and don’t forget that the islanders happily identified themselves as British citizens, too. The war was really an example of Argentinian military adventurism picking on what they perceived as a weak, far away opponent.
At best, the war was un-neccessary but hardly an illegal act, in Britain’s case, for the points stated above. Had the British Army invaded the islands, ala Iraq I and II, you’d probably have a case (which I could agree with).
I agree with the other posters that almost all of the wars listed have at least one side fighting justly and therefore do not violate libertarian principle of self-defense.
I’d say you are right. It is true that there used to be Spanish/Argentine settlers on the islands who were deported. However this is meaningless in the context of the Falklands War because Argentina did not wage the war to return their descendants to this land.
The Falklands where the most decent war since the Renaissance. If the Kosovo campaign had been just as carefully paned and executed, it could have helped a lot in closing an old ethnic wound for good.
You are conflating the cause with the conduct of the war. In doing so you are making your list have no practical value. You might as well say all wars ever fought are to be rejected and be done with it. It is a legitimate stance to take, but it won’t tell anyone anything new or interesting.
“No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate State-guilt does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought–and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greater degree of guilt on one side or the other.”
And lets think about the implications of your stance. If all wars except those totally impeccable are to be rejected then what exactly do we do when we find ourselves under attack?
Lets say that tomorrow France invades Switzerland. Are the Swiss libertarians to refuse to take up their state issued automatic rifles and to report to their reserve units, because it has been all funded by taxation? Are they to stage pro-disarmament demonstrations and demand the Swiss military stands down?
Ok, I tried to take away the most unjust wars, leaving only those which seem to me more or less bearable (i.e. the world became e better place due to those)
Boer war-first and second: I’d hold that as a model of just resistance.
Napoleonic wars: perhaps the Spanish guerrillas, or the Russian Cossacks
war: afghani warlord are more than justified, they finance their struggle through opium sales.
opium wars: the brits where not justifiable, but still their intervention was inevitable form the Misesian point of view, as a liberal country attacked a less liberal one to force it to concede freedom (of opium consumption in our case) to its subjects.
Mau Mau uprising: why not?
second Anglo-afghan war: the afghani are never unjust, although they are stupid
Kosovo war: well, the KLA forced young men to join its ranks and there are report of units killing civilians. But still it was financed though drug trade and was by far the closest thing to a just war the Balkans have seen in the XX century.
of : why not? It gave a decade of anarchy.
war: perfetto
invasion: the ‘allies” where only defending a piece of private property on the express invitation of the owner. they where right.
My point was just to see how many unlibertarian wars and conflicts there have been and also so we could get a discussion going that would raise knowledge of the different wars and why they were unlibertarian.I thought it would benefit everyone.