War and Libertarians

[quote]orion wrote:
…This incoherent moral law essentially proclaims that violence committed against innocent people is wrong." …

[/quote]

Rather amusing - not an uncommon characteristic of a farcical oversimplification of a position. I don’t think anyone could read the Barnett piece to be arguing the opposite position.

Another good issue-framing piece - again pointed out by Randy Barnett:

EXCERPT:

[i]The morality of warfare is an issue that has long divided libertarians. The spectrum of libertarian opinion on the subject ranges all the way from Leonard Peikoff, who defends the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets, to Robert LeFevre, who denied the legitimacy of all violence, even in self-defense.

Needless to say, most libertarians fall at various points between these two extremes �?? though the divisions have become sharper since the 9/11 attacks. (One of the more ironic manifestations of these divisions is that French libertarians are far more likely to support current US foreign policy than American libertarians are; perhaps anti-government thinkers tend to be more attracted to whatever position their own government opposes.)

What view of warfare is most consistent with libertarian principles? Here I shall distinguish between libertarianism as a normative ethical theory - a theory of justice - and libertarianism as a descriptive social theory. Libertarians disagree with one another as to the extent of the former’s dependence on the latter; utilitarian libertarians profess to believe the dependence total, while natural-rights libertarians profess to believe it nonexistent, but in practice both groups tend to treat the dependence as partial, and so will I.

Deontological Considerations

The non-consequentialist core of libertarian ethical theory is an egalitarian commitment; specifically, a commitment not to socioeconomic equality but to equality in authority. Indeed, libertarians’ lack of enthusiasm for enforced socioeconomic equality stems precisely from their concern that it can be achieved only at the cost of this for libertarians more fundamental form of equality.

The libertarian “non-aggression principle” expresses the conviction that forcibly to subordinate the person or property of another to one’s own aims is to assume an unjustifiable inequality in authority between oneself and the other. And it is because this equality in authority likewise holds between private citizens and public officials that governments are forbidden to exercise any powers not available to people generally; libertarianism requires not just equality before the law but equality with the law.

It follows that a consistent libertarian theory of warfare must apply the same prohibitions and permissions to governments and private individuals alike. In this respect it will be radically different from nonlibertarian theories, which typically grant government actors more latitude in the use of violence than private actors; a libertarian theory must be equally permissive �?? or equally restrictive �?? with both. A consistent libertarian cannot, for example, accept a mere apology as sufficient recompense when the US military accidentally bombs the wrong target and kills fifteen children in Afghanistan[5]unless she is prepared to be equally tolerant when Uncle Zeke’s backyard bazooka target practice accidentally takes out a passing school bus. It can make no difference whether the perpetrator is or is not an agent of the government; nor can it make any difference whether the victims are or are not citizens of that government.[/i]

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin22.html

"To the Editor:

This laudatory letter is a response to Randy Barnett�??s op-ed of Tuesday, July 17, in which he limns a brilliant vindication of the mass killing of Iraqi civilians. He has done us pro-murder libertarians a great service by reclaiming the movement from the radical flapdoodle pacifists who doggedly insist upon what they have labeled a “non-aggression axiom.” This incoherent moral law essentially proclaims that violence committed against innocent people is wrong."

"And now we come to the extremely un-libertarian Ron Paul. Paul believes in limited government and consistently votes against increases in federal power. This is a slap in the face to all good libertarians, e.g. Randy Barnett. Without a police state and strong military, how in the world is the government going to impose libertarianism?

So as we see, Paul is simply another in a long line of so-called libertarians who have espoused the rhetoric of limited government and personal liberty, while at the same time professing to be against murder, rape, and theft. "[/quote]

This post by Randy Barnett is likely at least partially in response to reactions such as the above:

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184891247

Do read the whole thing, which is interesting. Here’s the lede:

[i]Antiwar Libertarians and the Reification of the State: I hesitated writing my WSJ op-ed, Libertarians and the War because I knew it would provoke a strong reaction from antiwar libertarians, many of whom have been my friends and colleagues for a very long time. That it did. Therefore, I am grateful for the many emails and blog posts thanking me for pointing out that some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul’s stance on the war. But I am even more grateful to the many antiwar libertarians who avoided personal attacks and leveled their critique at what they perceived to be my argument rather than against me personally. And I am pleased that very few read my op-ed as an “attack” on antiwar libertarians generally or Ron Paul in particular. To the contrary, one cannot claim as I did that reasonable libertarians can disagree about the Iraq war and, at the same time, dismiss all antiwar libertarians as unreasonable. And I went to some lengths to specify areas of agreement shared by both libertarian supporters and opponents of the Iraq war.

Where most antiwar critics of my op-ed have gone wrong, however, is in asserting that I was attempting to refute their antiwar stance or was offering a defense of the Iraq war on libertarian grounds. That would have been difficult enough to do in a 1400 word op-ed; but was impossible in the 215 words I devoted to why some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul. It should be no surprise, therefore, that they found these 215 words unpersuasive. My sole aim in my op-ed was to inform readers that they should not assume that Ron Paul speaks for all libertarians because it is an undeniable fact that he does not. I have the emails and blog posts to prove it empirically![/i]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
“The problem is that the notion of state sovereignty in the modern era leads to a view of the moral equivalence of all states�??Communist China is then no different from Republican Switzerland�??and this is detrimental to human rights, because it means that a tyrannical state is immune from outside pressures to liberalize.”[/quote]

If we recognize the rights of self government within the framework of a truly liberal society then the legitimacy of a sovereign nation must be dictated by the will of the people, absolutely. This means that the Communist dictatorship of China is both legitimate and sovereign because the will of the people have not been expressed otherwise. When the will of the people express their collective dissent with coercion of force to overthrow a government then that new will becomes the legitimized will of the people.

Within the framework of libertarianism all individuals are responsible for their own affairs–we cannot make any distictions between a tyrannical dictatorship and republican democracy–they are both legitimate.

If a libertarian society wants to affect change it does so with independent consumer policy–we can let our displeasure at their oppressive regime be known by not trading with them. This is the only legitimate outside pressure that can be recognized.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
orion wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin22.html

"To the Editor:

This laudatory letter is a response to Randy Barnett�??s op-ed of Tuesday, July 17, in which he limns a brilliant vindication of the mass killing of Iraqi civilians. He has done us pro-murder libertarians a great service by reclaiming the movement from the radical flapdoodle pacifists who doggedly insist upon what they have labeled a “non-aggression axiom.” This incoherent moral law essentially proclaims that violence committed against innocent people is wrong."

"And now we come to the extremely un-libertarian Ron Paul. Paul believes in limited government and consistently votes against increases in federal power. This is a slap in the face to all good libertarians, e.g. Randy Barnett. Without a police state and strong military, how in the world is the government going to impose libertarianism?

So as we see, Paul is simply another in a long line of so-called libertarians who have espoused the rhetoric of limited government and personal liberty, while at the same time professing to be against murder, rape, and theft. "

This post by Randy Barnett is likely at least partially in response to reactions such as the above:

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184891247

Do read the whole thing, which is interesting. Here’s the lede:

[i]Antiwar Libertarians and the Reification of the State: I hesitated writing my WSJ op-ed, Libertarians and the War because I knew it would provoke a strong reaction from antiwar libertarians, many of whom have been my friends and colleagues for a very long time. That it did. Therefore, I am grateful for the many emails and blog posts thanking me for pointing out that some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul’s stance on the war. But I am even more grateful to the many antiwar libertarians who avoided personal attacks and leveled their critique at what they perceived to be my argument rather than against me personally. And I am pleased that very few read my op-ed as an “attack” on antiwar libertarians generally or Ron Paul in particular. To the contrary, one cannot claim as I did that reasonable libertarians can disagree about the Iraq war and, at the same time, dismiss all antiwar libertarians as unreasonable. And I went to some lengths to specify areas of agreement shared by both libertarian supporters and opponents of the Iraq war.

Where most antiwar critics of my op-ed have gone wrong, however, is in asserting that I was attempting to refute their antiwar stance or was offering a defense of the Iraq war on libertarian grounds. That would have been difficult enough to do in a 1400 word op-ed; but was impossible in the 215 words I devoted to why some libertarians disagree with Ron Paul. It should be no surprise, therefore, that they found these 215 words unpersuasive. My sole aim in my op-ed was to inform readers that they should not assume that Ron Paul speaks for all libertarians because it is an undeniable fact that he does not. I have the emails and blog posts to prove it empirically![/i][/quote]

What was he trying to say then?

He (the author) does not defend the Iraq war and Ron Paul is not anti war per-se, so what is his point?

That some libertarians might be pro-war under some conditions?

Well, um, yes?