November 15, 2002
Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs
In the last essay I argued that libertarians have the wrong approach to advancing their cause. I could have quoted libertarian godfather Murray Rothbard: "While Marxists devote about 90 percent of their energies to thinking about strategy and only 10 percent to their basic theories, for libertarians the reverse is true." Rothbard observed that the libertarian strategy amounts to an intellectually satisfying but strategically impotent method of talking at people. "Most classical liberal or laissez-faire activists have adopted, perhaps without much thoughtful consideration, a simple strategy that we may call 'educationism.' Roughly: We have arrived at the truth, but most people are still deluded believers in error; therefore, we must educate these people -- via lectures, discussions, books, pamphlets, newspapers, or whatever -- until they become converted to the correct point of view."
Libertarians not only suffer from a lack of strategy for winning, they have little to offer in the way of maintaining authority should they some day emerge victorious. This is important to consider because American liberty (and I am largely confining this to be an American question, though many of my comments apply to libertarians in other countries) has enemies both internal and external.
Start with external enemies -- the host of armed authoritarian states that would relish an opportunity to seize American wealth and liberty. There is no gentle way of saying this: libertarians sound like absolute fools when they talk about foreign policy. I have heard libertarian thinkers much smarter than me give brilliant, sophisticated, world-wise discourses on libertarian domestic policy, only to sound like naive sophomores when the talk turns to foreign affairs.
Libertarians like to pretend, for example, that the U.S. could have avoided World War II without consequence for liberty. At best they argue from historical accident rather than principal -- the claim that Hitler would have lost by virtue of his failure in Russia, for example, or that Britain could have survived without the American Lend-Lease program.
Likewise comes the libertarian claim that American adventures in the Cold War were misguided. In this they display an ugly penchant for concerning themselves with the liberties of white Americans, which explains the view of many that the U.S. Civil War represents the earliest great infringement on liberty (as if the liberty of slaves doesn't count in the balance).
These arguments against foreign intervention derive from the libertarian principle that coercion is wrong, which is really no fixed principle at all, because nearly all libertarians admit that a military financed through taxation is a necessity for the protection of liberty. Somewhere in their calculus, however, they conclude that this coercion shouldn't extend to financing the liberation of non-Americans. Perhaps this is principled, but it is certainly not the only viable alternative for a true lover of liberty. To tell people languishing in states like China and the former Soviet bloc that our commitment to liberty prevents us from opposing their masters is the height of churlishness and foolishness.
Perhaps the worst is the libertarian position on Israel, which amounts to a replay of Joe Kennedy's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to Hitler in the 1930's. Sure, without American support every man, woman, and child among the Jews might have their throats slit by Muslim thugs, but it's not like they got that country fairly in the first place, and really, it's none of our business. That's not a caricature, by the way. At an event in Washington I heard a prominent libertarian argue that we shouldn't support Israel because what happens to them is their problem, not ours. And libertarians wonder why nobody takes their views on foreign policy seriously.
The libertarian response to this critique is to point out examples of failed U.S. intervention. Yes, the CIA sowed seeds of anti-Americanism in Iran by supporting the Shah. Admitted, we supported a tyrant in Haiti. True, we armed the mujahaddin in Afghanistan. But we also dealt the death blows to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and accelerated the self-destruction of the Soviet Union while controlling its expansion. These are not trivial events in the history of liberty. Libertarian academics have developed a cottage industry, however, to produce counterfactual histories which amount to claiming that all of the good things would have happened anyway without American intervention, and probably would have happened faster.
Of course one can just as easily tell a story in which American isolationism leads to the emergence of totalitarian states that divide the rest of the world, restrict trade, and make all of us worse off. The point is that in the area of foreign policy libertarians are most likely to argue from principle, yet this is the area where consequentialism is most required. Nobody cares about principle if it leads to enslavement or death. When libertarians do argue from consequence, they have no experience or expertise to speak from, nor do they associate with people who do. Name the libertarian scholars with serious expertise in foreign or military affairs. Name the libertarian activists with considerable experience in foreign or military affairs. You get the point.
To be taken seriously as a philosophy of governance, libertarianism must grapple with foreign affairs, and with the possible reality that liberty depends on strong military power. Suggest this at a libertarian gathering, however, and you'll hear chuckles of derision. Perhaps they are right. The fact that they chuckle, however, but have yet to answer this question in a convincing manner, is evidence of the libertarian closemindedness on this issue.
But let's assume that most libertarians would support a military large enough to fend off foreign enemies. They would still have to confront the reality that they have no viable model of power maintenance against domestic enemies of liberty. To see what I mean, imagine that libertarians have nominated a slate of charismatic, well-funded, highly networked candidates (indulge me -- it's a Friday) who have won the Presidency and a solid majority of Congress. These revolutionaries proceed to create the libertarian wet dream -- drug legalization, plans for phasing out government schools and Social Security, isolationist foreign policy, no more ATF . . . and did I mention drug legalization?
In this fantasy the economy booms but foreign states are deterred by our minimal armed forces, people are happy, and sales of Atlas Shrugged go through the roof. It is the End of History.
Except, people get older. Memory fades. The Left remains committed to brainwashing children and co-opting public and private organizations. A child overdoses on heroin. Drugs are slowly re-criminalized. Some idiot old babyboomers (sorry for the triple redundancy) starve to death because they could never be bothered to save for old age. Others lose their savings when they invest them all in Bill Clinton Enterprises. Hello Social Security and financial regulation. The schools stay private because the Left realizes how much easier it is to peddle garbage by McDonaldizing it (i.e., by becoming the low-cost provider and pandering to human weakness).
So, in a generation or less, the revolution is slowly dismantled, and libertarians are blamed for the ills of society. They go back to holding their convention in a Motel Six in Las Vegas, and cheering when their candidate for Sonoma County Commissioner comes in a close third in a three-man race.
The Left doesn't face this problem. Deprived of principle, integrity, or honor, they are happy to snip the bottom rungs as they climb the ladder of power. You can already see this in Europe, where EU thugs are slowly transferring decision-making authority from quasi-democratic legislatures to unelected Brussels technocrats. We saw a hint of it in the U.S., when supposed children of the free-thinking sixties proved strikingly willing to use the power of the federal government to punish and stifle opposition.
But libertarians are all about individual liberty. Thus they face a quandary: How to maintain their state once it's built? This question should be especially pressing, insofar as their model implies that government tends to grow and become oppressive.
There appear to be two avenues open: the first is to adopt a variant of the Left's strategy, and eliminate unfavored options for future generations. Libertarians might, for example, replace the Constitution with a mirror document that does not contain any provision for amendment. This would leave the states open to adopt all manner of idiocy, however. Perhaps libertarians at the state level could adopt similarly permanent protections of individual rights as well. Thus libertarians could effectively ban most opposition parties, without suffering the guilt that Third World dictators endure when they do so more directly. I'm not sure if this would be acceptable in the libertarian paradigm. No matter, however, for the point is that they don't discuss it.
The second avenue for maintaining the libertarian state is culture. If children and new citizens are thoroughly educated in logic, economics, and other foundations of libertarian thinking, then perhaps they can be trusted to maintain liberty even in the face of very persuasive demagogues. But then certain topics become central: childrearing, childhood education, individual self-censorship and discipline, community norms, and reciprocal obligations. It would also require a consideration of the place religion plays in all of the aforementioned. Nearly all of these topics, however, are ignored by individualist libertarians, who furthermore routinely deride -- almost as a condition for membership -- those who call for their rigorous pursuit either as policy or personal practice.
Libertarians have less that's interesting to say about childhood education, for example, than does the Democratic Leadership Council. But childhood education is probably the linchpin of the libertarian society. How many libertarians, however, give much thought to where even their own children will go to school? Sure, they want safety and effectiveness, like any other parent, but how many give serious attention to finding or building schools that inculcate in children the ability to think critically, along with a sense of moral responsibility? Precious few.
If libertarians were serious about taking and maintaining power -- truly serious -- then they would drop the caterwauling over drug criminalization and focus every drop of energy on building schools. The latter is hard work, however, and forces consideration of messy things like moral instruction, and self-discipline, and what makes for good parenting. It's far easier to toke up in the discounted hotel room at the Libertarian Party Convention and rail against the DEA. Thus libertarianism remains less a force for change than a tool for self-expression.
This is in part a product of the natural individualistic nature of libertarianism. The solution isn't to eliminate -- or even drastically reduce -- the individualism that underlies libertarian philosophy, but it does require reconciliation with the social nature of human beings. It also requires acceptance of the fact that people are not only communal in nature, but spiritual. I will address this in my next essay.
Posted by Woodlief on November 15, 2002 at 10:04 AM
There are lots of problems with this post. You are again picking the strawmen, and then when you dismiss their views as churlish or foolish, you think you've made your point.
1. WWII - it's not profitable to debate this today, but suffice to say that in 1940 it was not clear at all that intervention by the US was wise or widely supported. The real problem, of course, was American intervention midway through WWI (followed by a subsequent withdrawal of power from the continent which set the stage for a resurgent Germany).
2. Civil War - who doesn't take into consideration the rights of blacks? The argument turns on whether war was necessary, not on whether blacks should've been enslaved. See Jeff Hummel's book for more.
3. Most sophisticated arguments I hear for non-intervention don't turn on some coercion principle, but rather are based on the view that intervention by gov'ts in economies and foreign states is a blunt instrument that often causes more harm than good, and resentment that leads to a backlash.
4. "Likewise comes the libertarian claim that American adventures in the Cold War were misguided. In this they display an ugly penchant for concerning themselves with the liberties of white Americans." Would this be the same "ugly penchant" that conservatives show when the complain about foreign aid to developing countries?
Posted by: DC at November 15, 2002 10:40 PM
To DC: I am curious about number 3 in particular. Which intervention caused more harm than good, and to which "backlash" are you referring? You certainly have the right to express your opinion, but for some reason, I feel my blood boiling.
Posted by: Llana at November 16, 2002 12:42 PM
DC -
Of course its still profitable to debate this today. And, even granting your point that it was "not clear at all that intervention by the US was wise or widely supported", the benefit of hindsight allows us to look back and see who was right. This is the whole point of studying history. You learn what not to do by looking into the past.
Appeasement was popular too, especially in Britain, but it was proven to be the wrong way to go. Same with isolationism. It is just not a realistic or effective foreign policy for a world power.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at November 16, 2002 4:04 PM
"Which intervention caused more harm than good, and to which "backlash" are you referring? "
I would say that getting rid of the Kaiser turned out to be not such a good idea. He certainly would have had the motive and the means to keep rabblerousing Austrian corporals away from the reins of power, if for no other reason than that he was keen to keep holding them himself. Not to mention that he could hardly have messed up the Middle East more than the British did.
"Likewise comes the libertarian claim that American adventures in the Cold War were misguided. In this they display an ugly penchant for concerning themselves with the liberties of white Americans."
Since some of the American adventures in the Cold War involved kidnapping American civilians (and not just white ones) and dropping them into proxy wars halfway around the planet, I would say that some concern about the liberties of Americans is called for.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2002 8:57 PM
"Perhaps the worst is the libertarian position on Israel, which amounts to a replay of Joe Kennedy's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to Hitler in the 1930's. Sure, without American support every man, woman, and child among the Jews might have their throats slit by Muslim thugs, but it's not like they got that country fairly in the first place, and really, it's none of our business. "
What we really should have done in the first place was to invite the Jewish refugees to settle in the natural home of oppressed peoples from all over the planet, i.e. the good old US of A. Unfortunately, we instead backed a plan whereby they all got moved to one of the planet's worst neighborhoods, and we committed ourselves to defend them there.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2002 9:03 PM
"without American support every man, woman, and child among the Jews might have their throats slit by Muslim thugs"
Not true. If Israel couldn't handle the expense of defending itself against the Palestinians, it would expel them. It would mean a more volatile Middle East, and might permanently kill chances for peace between Israel and Arabs, but Israel would survive, as it has.
It's safety is not in doubt. If the Arabs destroy Israel, the Arabs and Islam itself will be nuked into oblivion, Islam will cease to exist as a major religion (there will be a lot of fervent apocalyptic end times feelings among surviving Muslims, and a lot of rioting and terror attacks, if Mecca and Medina were nuked, but after that, many would drift away and convert to other religions)
Posted by: Michael Levy at November 17, 2002 9:41 PM
Llana-
Most government action is a blunt instrument. One look at domestic policy and it's pretty clear that government solutions tend not to be finely tuned whether because of knowledge problems, public choice problems, incentives problems, etc. The same is generally true when it comes to foreign policy.
I think American intervention into WWI was not wise. I think American intervention into Vietnam was not wise. I think the first Gulf War was a mistake.
Posted by: DC at November 18, 2002 9:58 AM
DC
You just proved one of the main points of the essay - you're clueless on foreign policy.
WWI - beats me. You could be right.
Vietnam - pathetically poor execution does not mean the original concetp was wrong. The best comparison would be Korea. Compare North and South KLorea, and tell me that what we did there was bad. Go on. Try to make yourself believe it. Vietnam was similar, it's just that the execution of it was completely botched.
Gulf War I - Wow, that's rich. Yeah, let's let a crazy guy invade a neighboring country (with a lot more oil) and not lift a finger. When he's done taking all the oil fields in the Middle East (and probably has nukes), then what? The majority of the world's oil supply is in the the hands of a Hitler knock-off (the Baath party is very similar to the Nazis, and Saddam definately has the same ego problems). Yeah, hands off is a great approach there. All the bad things of Hitler with most of the bad things of the USSR in control of the bulk of the world oil supply. Nice. Get a CLUE!
Posted by: Deoxy at November 18, 2002 11:19 AM
My full reply is here.
Summed up, I take serious issue with the repeated declarations that his experience with libertarians (big and small 'L') and philosophies their applies to all, most of, or at least a significant portion of libertarians and to the philosophy of libertarianism. I can't agree with that until I see some sort of evidence. I certainly don't see his beliefs in the opinions of the libertarians I read and know.
I also take issue with his repeated attempts to demonize libertarians regarding drugs. Enough already, OK? It's a pertinent issue that involves all the classic libertarian theories. It is also an issue that resonates with younger voters. It's a utilitarian position to take. Perhaps more time and resources could be put towards other avenues (such as foreign policy), but that doesn't justify the regularity of his attacks.
Finally, I don't believe a system of government MUST have some way of maintaining power. That kind of thinking is dangerous and statist. People determine the composition of their government and if they disagree with it, they can either change it or leave. If a libertarian ticket was roundly endorsed in some hypothetical future, there would have to be some necessary changes in the supreme governing document in the US. If people don't like those changes, they can freely pick another country to move to.
Posted by: Charles Hueter at November 18, 2002 3:35 PM
"Vietnam - pathetically poor execution does not mean the original concetp was wrong. The best comparison would be Korea. Compare North and South KLorea, and tell me that what we did there was bad. Go on. Try to make yourself believe it."
We cannot deny that American military support for South Korea provided an enormous net benefit to South Korea, or that American military actions in Vietnam, had they been successful, would have provided similar benefits to the people of Vietnam. But that, in and of itself, does not prove the contention that it is right and proper for the government of the United States to kidnap American civilians and send some of them to their deaths in order to bring these benefits to foreigners.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 18, 2002 5:12 PM
DC, You did not answer my question. You imply that you need to see evidence that the libertarian party is lacking substance in it's platform on many issues, yet you are obviously too defensive to listen to any other point of view. If you can answer this question, please respond: Do you think any intervention by this country has been wise at all? A "blunt instrument?" C'mon.
Posted by: Llana at November 18, 2002 7:20 PM
To the un-named commentator:
I never said whether or not it was "right' to go to Vietnam - I was responding to the comment that it was "unwise" to go to Vietnam. Actually, I think Vietnam, in context, was really more about the Cold War, and as such, we didn't really care about the Vietnamese (well, in a sense, we did, but that's not why we were there). It was a proxy war (on the other side) - we weren't fighting the North Vietnamese for being them, we were fighting them for being allied to our enemies. As such, there are aspects of the Vietnam war that could be considered "self-defense". NOT on any local scale, but in relation to the Cold War.
That's a whole diffrent can of worms, and I'm not saying that necessarily justifies everything that was done, only that people condemn Vietnam while divorcing it from the context. To condemn the Vietnam war, you need to address its relation to the Cold War, otherwise, you're being either naive or dishonest, and people who are willing to consider that context will discount what you say.
Now as to "kidnapping" Americans - that's just extremist, overheated rhetoric that doesn't help your cause. Or do you mean that government thugs raided houses at night and ragged young men away, never to be seen again? Seriously, you need to make your case that there was no self-defense aspect AT ALL in the Vietnam war before referring to draftees as being "kidnapped" even APPROACHES being reasonable.
The possibility of the draft is a requirement for the defense of any country. To simply call it all kidnapping is irresponsible.
Posted by: Deoxy at November 19, 2002 12:18 PM
Most conservatives agree that gov't action is usually a blunt instrument - this term is not foreign to them. That's why, in part, conservatives are rightly usually opposed to nation-building. My point is that the bluntness of government action ought to dissuade conservatives from supporting all but defensive wars - and I don't think Iraq falls into that category (yet?).
As far as Deoxy goes, what to say except that I'm not sure why someone who says, "WWI - beats me. You could be right," can turn around and call me "clueless on foreign policy."
It depends on one's conception of foreign policy - is it a tool to protect Americans and American freedoms from attack, or is it a tool to liberate the world. If it's the first, then it's unclear how either Vietnam or the Gulf War were fought to defend the U.S. If it's the second, then why stop there?
Posted by: dc at November 20, 2002 1:32 PM
OK, so since I am not an expert on WWI, my opinions on modern day foreign policy apparently don't count?
I said "beats me" because I haven't studied WWI in depth, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so at the moment. To write me off for that is pathetic. Admitted lack of knowledge on one topic means exactly that - I don't know enough to comment, so I won't - I will grant the point without argument, since you seem to have greater knowledge there. What bearing does that have on the rest of my argument?
As to self-defense, where is the line between proactive self-defense (preventing large scale casualties, not avenging them) and "liberat[ing] the world"? There obviously IS one - I'm not arguing for liberating the world. Since it was apparently too veiled for you before, I will try to state the issue bluntly.
If the USSR, whom we percieved to be a threat to our existence, was trying to expand its "sphere of influence" via proxy forces in Vietnam (or Korea or anywhere else), could not a properly self-defense-minded person come to the conclusion that preventing that expansion would be wise for the defense of our country?
The answer is obviously "Yes". Correct or not, that was the point of Korea and Vietnam (and many other proxy wars in the Cold War). If the reason is still "unlear" to you, perhaps you are being willfully obtuse?
And the reasons for the Gulf War are even simpler: oil. As terrible as it sounds, oil is worth fighting for. NOT because we have a right to cheap oil, but because of the global influence associated with oil.
Imagine for a moment that Saddam Hussein controlled the majority of the Middle East - there is very significant reason to believe that was his plan. Even if the US were somehow immune, he would wield ENORMOUS influence on the rest of the world. Think OPEC, only controlled by one man. Strategically, it's a very bad thing for the US, not to mention that he has a history of using WMDs on civilians and was (and still is) trying to get the A-bomb.
Nipping that in the bud is not self-defense?
So, you would advocate waiting until we are DIRECTLY threatened before we do anything, right? Instead of fighting small wars every few years against potential threats (most of which probably would never pan out), we should wait until one of them DOES pan out - then we fight a HUGE war. Which is the wiser course? And BOTH are self-defense.
Still "unclear"?
As to the "blunt instrument" thing - yeah, so? Propose a better alternative (hint: sitting on our collective butts while things go on in the world is not a better solution - that's how WWII came about).
Posted by: Deoxy at November 20, 2002 4:58 PM
One more thing.
Taking out Saddam IS defensive. He was involved in an assassination attempt on a former US President. There is significant evidence (publicly!) that he was involved in the first WTC bombing. Had that succeeded, the towers would have come down IMMEDIATELY instead of taking on hour or so - and they would have fallen over, taking out the buildings around. Estimates range from 10,000 dead and up.
That is a more than sufficient reason for a defensive war.
We don't have to wait for them to succeed - the attempt is enough. (In my opinion the earnest intention is enough, since that means they will attempt it, given the means, but that is admittedly much harder to judge.)
Posted by: Deoxy at November 20, 2002 6:41 PM
"The possibility of the draft is a requirement for the defense of any country."
And on what do you base that? When the US needed to fight a war for its own safety, people were stampeding to get into uniform, not looking for ways out, and the vast majority of "draftees" would have volunteered anyway. The American people can be trusted to come to the defense of our country when it really needs defending; our leaders have shown that they cannot be trusted with the power to force Americans into uniform for causes that they cannot convince their countrymen to risk their lives for on their own.
"If the USSR, whom we percieved to be a threat to our existence, was trying to expand its "sphere of influence" via proxy forces in Vietnam (or Korea or anywhere else), could not a properly self-defense-minded person come to the conclusion that preventing that expansion would be wise for the defense of our country?"
Only if the USSR's expansion of its "sphere of influence" in a conventional sideshow such as Vietnam could bring it any closer to being able to harm or defeat us in the face of a nuclear standoff.
Posted by: Crazy Eddie at November 21, 2002 12:18 PM
"The American people can be trusted to come to the defense of our country when it really needs defending"
Only if they perceive the danger - and danger may exist with or without our perception. The defense of the country is the one duty all libertarians seem to be willing to give the government - as such, the government needs the tools to defend the country. If there was a danger, and it took a year to convince people that the danger was real and we need more soldiers than we have, it might well already be too late. Conscription (as well as the war powers of the President) are an ackowledgement of the realities of war - it often happens much faster than any committee or group action can react to.
"Only if the USSR's expansion of its "sphere of influence" in a conventional sideshow such as Vietnam could bring it any closer to being able to harm or defeat us in the face of a nuclear standoff."
Part of the strategy of the Cold War was to put missiles in as many places as possible - in a nuclear surprise attack, missiles in many places would make it almost impossible to destroy the victim's ability to counter-attack. As such, global dominance would the dominant side a great advatage in the case of nuclear standoff or even nuclear war.
Satisfied? There's more if you need it...
And you didn't respond on the issue of the war against Iraq being obviously defensive (even without showing Al Qaeda-Iraqi connections). Or do you concede that point?
Posted by: Deoxy at November 21, 2002 1:56 PM
