The
Future of Freedom Foundation| The
Future of Freedom Foundation |
08/21/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
July 30,
2007 In the Wall Street Journal recently, Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote that a libertarian can support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. His aim was to show that Rep. Ron Paul, the only anti-war Republican and libertarian in the presidential race, doesn't speak for all libertarians on the war. There are two problems with Barnett's thesis: (1) historically, war and preparation for it have been the biggest stimuli to the growth of government, which libertarians philosophically oppose; and (2) the Iraq war is an aggressive war, which libertarians also oppose. Barnett writes, "While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly." That is true as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go very far, and what it leaves out is crucial. To be sure, libertarian principles do not prescribe a military strategy or tell us "what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack." But that doesn't mean libertarian principles are silent on these matters; they do tell us what is inappropriate. They tell us that government should not provoke attacks by brutally intervening in other people's affairs, as the U.S. government has done consistently in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Anyone who accepts, as Barnett puts it, "the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory" should insist that the government not endanger the American people by making foreign enemies. A provoked attack would not call for a counterattack, but rather a change in the interventionist policy that created the threat in the first place. Moreover, libertarian principles tell us that any response to a truly unprovoked attack must respect the rights of innocents. Actions that can be expected to harm people not involved in the original attack should be avoided. War must not be an occasion for dispensing with normal moral prohibitions. Those who disagree lose their standing to object to the murder of innocents on 9/11. Barnett acknowledges that libertarians are skeptical that government can do anything constructive on the world stage: "To a libertarian, any effort at 'nation building' seems to be just another form of central planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended consequences and the danger of blowback. And, like most everyone, libertarians oppose any war of aggression." He's right. But the prohibition on wars of aggression rules out the war in Iraq, which never threatened the American people. Barnett disagrees. He says the war can be justified as part of the defense against Islamic jihadis. But as noted already, the anti-American jihad grew out of decades of oppressive intervention in Arab and Muslim countries. It's the blowback Barnett refers to. Moreover, conquering a secular westernized Arab country seems a peculiar way to defend against jihad. It's far more likely to create new mortal enemies. Barnett's
"libertarian" defense of the war turns out to be nothing of
the kind. This is reinforced by the fact that he neglects the libertarian
insight that war fortifies everything libertarians abhor: taxes, debt,
jobbery, and violations of civil liberties such as privacy. No one has
put it better than the anti–World War I writer Randolph Bourne: "War
is the health of the state." How can any libertarian defend it?
Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Missoula, Montana Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University’s Argyros School of B and E and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He is an advisor to Freedom Communications. His most recent book is Libertarianism Defended, (Ashgate, 2006).
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association."
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Samuel Bostaph is head of the economics department at the University of Dallas and an academic advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Anthony Gregory is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, January 2006) and Terrorism & Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), and is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer and serves as a policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Bart Frazier is program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. |
Mr. President, the CIA Is Already Talking to Syria Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell Shssh! Don't Tell Americans How We Treat "Enemy Combatants" The Pentagon's Power to Jail Americans Indefinitely Our Patience on Iraq Should Be Exhausted Once Again, Gun Control Doesn't Work Bush War Policy Comes Crashing Down Presidential Politics and Foreign Policy Immigration Policy Reveals What We Are Must History Always Repeat Itself? What Freedoms Did Americans Celebrate on the Fourth? Yes to Recriminations against Iraq Policymakers Complete Archives for The Future of Freedom Foundation  |
|||||||||||
