The Hawk of Libertarianism Flies At Dusk
Jacob Levy in an email to Belle Waring speaks up for libertarian hawkishness:
Libertarianism is incompatible with invading other countries and overthrowing their governments iff: 1) States are fundamental rights-bearers who cannot be aggressed against -- which is a really weird thing for libertarians to think.Fair enough, fair enough. One could try and pen a lengthy philosophical response, but getting down to brass tacks about Iraq, here's the issue. It seems to me (and to many others) that nothing could be less libertarian than the idea that the US government ought to undertake a massive program to use huge quantities of money and ample doses of coercive force in order to utterly remake the political and social order in the Middle East. Forget about the wrongness or rightness of such an undertaking, but what would lead a libertarian to believe that such a thing could possibly work? The neoconservative grand project would seem to be the largest central planning endeavor ever undertaken by the United States of America. On an even more general level, the larger project of maintaining American hegemony in the Persian Gulf in which the whole Iraq policy debate has played out isn't a very libertarian sort of thing to undertake or defend.2) Libertarianism is incompatible with any use of force, e.g. it is a variant of pacifism. Some people think this, but I deny that only they count as libertarians.
3) Libertarianism is incompatible with any state action, e.g. it is a variant of anarchism. Lots of libertarians think this, but I also deny that only they count as libertarians.
I tend to think that most of what's going on here is explained by the fact that you've got a certain number of people (see, e.g., Andrew Sullivan) who are conservative nationalists who happen to think that conservatives are wrong about the whole gay thing. Sullivan is a soi-disant conservative notwithstanding his disagreement about the whole gay thing, but others with that particular view may choose to call themselves "libertarians," especially if they tend to hang out in academic or other intellectual precincts where distancing yourself from those conservatives might be especially important to one's ability to maintain cordial relations with one's friends and colleagues.
But of course one might deny that the Iraq War was fundamentally about any grand transformative project. Perhaps you maintain it was a simple response to a bona fide security threat. Then we're talking matters of fact rather than political theory, but if this is right then surely the time has come to pack our bags and go home. Saddam is gone, the WMD are gone. If we leave, Iraq may become a haven for terrorists who plot against us, true. So perhaps we level Falluja and then go home. This business about sticking around until Iraq establishes a functioning democracy or for the sake of the well-being of average Iraqis in general reeks of planning and coercion.
September 23, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834216d3053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Hawk of Libertarianism Flies At Dusk:
» Military charity from Majikthise
Belle Waring was right, Jacob Levy was wrong. Libertarians can’t support humanitarian wars because humanitarian wars are military charity. Libertarians oppose wealth redistribution and social welfare spending. They argue that it is wrong to forcibly ... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 23, 2004 4:15:46 PM
» A Libertarian War from Lawyers, Guns and Money
What I think Matt overlooks, however, is that libertarianism itself is a high modernist doctrine. It proposes to radically redesign existing political arrangements around a specific conception of natural right, ignoring local conditions, traditions, ... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 23, 2004 4:29:18 PM
» Song of the Schmibertarians from Crooked Timber
I agree with Matt. Jacob Levy’s defense of the possibility of Libertarian Hawkishness is coherent and even forceful in the context of the Afghanistan war, but Belle backed down too soon because it’s just not plausible to construe libertaria... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2004 12:18:09 AM
» Song of the Schmibertarians from Crooked Timber
I agree with Matt. Jacob Levy’s defense of the possibility of Libertarian Hawkishness is coherent and even forceful in the context of the Afghanistan war, but Belle backed down too soon. It’s just not plausible to construe libertarianism as... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2004 12:21:49 AM
» Song of the Schmibertarians from Kieran Healy's Weblog
I agree with Matt. Jacob Levy’s defense of the possibility of Libertarian Hawkishness is coherent and even forceful in the... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2004 12:25:10 AM
» Song of the Schmibertarians from Crooked Timber
I agree with Matt. Jacob Levy’s defense of the possibility of Libertarian Hawkishness is coherent and even forceful in the context of the Afghanistan war, but Belle backed down too soon. It’s just not plausible to construe libertarianism as... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2004 4:31:19 AM
» Song of the Schmibertarians from Kieran Healy's Weblog
I agree with Matt. Jacob Levy’s defense of the possibility of Libertarian Hawkishness is coherent and even forceful in the... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2004 1:25:57 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 3:42:04 AM
Comments
I think what is missing is on the set of conditions is, after (3):
or,
(4) Overthrowing an existing regime necessarily involves replacing it, generally without any means of securing the actual consent of those governed, which necessary action is itself directly contrary to fundamental principles of libertarianism.
Posted by: cmdicely | Sep 23, 2004 12:51:04 PM
Speaking as a libertarian:
* If there is an external threat against us, there is justification in spending large amounts of treasure and people in removing it. Reasonable people can disagree whether Islamic terrorism is such a beast.
* Reasonable people can also disagree about whether we should have occupied and divided Germany at the end of WWII, or whether we should have gone in, kicked butt and immediately left. I think the same thing is true about Iraq - we can "occupy" and assist in their realization of democracy and self-determination, or we can stop at the border and let the psychopaths grow strong again. It seems prudent to me that we don't let that happen.
Lastly, with regard to central planning - at the end of the day, there are (in my opinion) only two ways to end Islamic terrorism: worldwide adoption of Islam or the elimination of despotic Islamic regimes, replacing them with representative democracies.
If those are the only two choices, I would rather have the central planning of the latter than the central planning of the former.
Posted by: jb | Sep 23, 2004 12:55:30 PM
One can easily wander into a reductio ad absurdum when discussing libertarians - the purist fringe invites that. But I think the more middle-of-the-road libertarian realizes that a libertarian institutional framework can be imposed and enforced, even by government action, against bad actors with more authoritarian instincts. Every party to this conflict is trying to impose some sort of government framework. Classical libertarianism isn't one of the options on hand - we only get to choose between bad and less bad.
Relative to some of the alternatives in the Middle East, Bush is a libertarian, even if he doesn't come across as one at home..
I think you're right that the occupation overreached. Occupiers, even with the best of intentions, exhaust their welcome very quickly, and we would have had a happier Iraq experience if we had transitioned power more quickly to a moderately acceptable Iraqi coalition rather than trying to create an idealized western democracy out of whole cloth. But that's not really an argument about libertarianism at all..
Posted by: Dan Ryan | Sep 23, 2004 1:09:30 PM
Wouldn't a libertarian say that each individual has the right to decide for himself whether or not to spend some of his own money to depose any particular external threat?
Posted by: Josh Yelon | Sep 23, 2004 1:11:00 PM
By the way, Matt... when you say that this "reeks of planning," I think you should say that it "reeks of being a task that requires planning." I don't think you should suggest that any *actual* planning took place.
Posted by: Josh Yelon | Sep 23, 2004 1:13:10 PM
jb writes:
[A]t the end of the day, there are (in my opinion) only two ways to end Islamic terrorism: worldwide adoption of Islam or the elimination of despotic Islamic regimes, replacing them with representative democracies.
First, the Baathist regime was not a theocracy. (It was the idea that it might be better to have secular strongmen like Saddam in the Arab world than theocracies that led to the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.)
Second, do you really believe that unless the US topples every Islamic goverrnment that comes to power from now until the end of time, California will end up converting to Islam? Our old policy of basically ignoring Islamic governments (except when they did something that specifically upset us, in which case we bombed the living crap out of them) seemed pretty workable.
Posted by: alkali | Sep 23, 2004 1:15:16 PM
Suppose that someone was doing at least one of the two following things:
- keeping large numbers of slaves
- creating weapons with the plan of killing people
A libertarian sees this and is worried about the liberties of the slaves and/or the people who will be killed, so he considers three options:
- doing nothing to that person
- incapacitating that person, and then letting the chips fall where they may
- incapacitating that person, and then making sure that no one else steps in to take possession of the slaves or use the weapons to kill
The third option seems like a good libertarian option, since the libertarian cares about the slaves becoming free and about no one being killed, not just about what is being done by this one guy.
Now if you follow the analogy up to states, and turn the slaveholder into a rogue dictator with an army and the rescuer into a country with a better army, that complicates things. Any state military action involves an enormous number of violations of people's rights, and the creation of a liberal society is much harder than freeing a few slaves. It could still be worth it, though, if the rights violations likely to be prevented outweigh the rights violations caused (assuming that you have a rather consequentialist version of libertarianism rather than a "though shalt not violate anyone else's rights" version.
So there is at least a theoretical libertarian argument for this kind of war. The problems that a libertarian hawk faces are a variation on those those faced by most every other kind of hawk - most notably, that Saddam did not have WMDs and that an attempt to use force to turn Iraq into anything like a liberal society would be a big mess.
Posted by: Blar | Sep 23, 2004 1:31:32 PM
Not sure I get the Hegel reference. Are you saying that libertarians have gained wisdom from the Iraq experience? If so, in what direction?
Posted by: wvmcl | Sep 23, 2004 1:36:21 PM
Well, jb, I think what you've really proven isn't that the grand neocon vision is compatible with libertarianism, but that the current unpleasantness has convinced you that libertarianism isn't really (or at least isn't always) a viable political philosophy.
Nothing you said challenges Matt's basic point that remaking the middle east by force and imposing functional democracies is incompatible with libertarianism (which it certainly isn't; that we are even arguing the point is a bit absurd). To the extent that you are convinced that such an option is the preferred alternative, you aren't really a libertarian anymore.
I mean, go ahead and call yourself anything you want. But the term, as used by you, doesn't contain much meaning.
Posted by: Larry M | Sep 23, 2004 1:37:14 PM
The shallowness of Matt's analysis of our current situation is mind boggling. We are where we are for a very defined set of circumstances as follows:
1. Many attacks against the US by terrorists during the 1990's with no response from US.
2. 9/11: clearly the culmination of this series.
3. Stop their training ground in Afghanistan. Ongoing.
4. Draw a line in the sand for Iraq/UN to stop a vicious dictator who is paying no attention to world opinion, is supporting many aspects of terrorism, is shooting at US and allies daily and is ripping off the Oil for Food program to support his regime.
5. Back up that line in the sand when the vicious dictator refuses to respond responsibly (remember, he could have left and none of the Irag activity would have happened).
6. Occupy Iraq much more easily than predicted and find that the occupation and repair of Irag is more difficult than thought by anyone.
7. Evaluate situation and conclude that the best alternative for several reasons is to "stay the course" and develop a "democracy" in a very difficult part of the world that has conciously been left to fester for several decades.
I do not see the fault in that thread.
Posted by: Noodles | Sep 23, 2004 1:40:42 PM
Noodles:
The biggest* "fault", from a libertairan perspective, is whether the goal in step 7 of your analyis is feasible (or, arguably morally justifiable).
Now, I'm sure you can give me a whole host of responses to those two objections, but those responses won't be very convincing to a true libertarian. They may well be persuasive to some people who call themselves libertarians, but (as Matt suggests), the fact that someone is fiscally conservative and socially liberal does not a libertarian make.
* I say "biggest" fault because a libertaian might well have some other quibbles as well with your chain of logic as well. Many (not all) libertarians would have a host of objections to steps 3 through 6.
Posted by: Larry M | Sep 23, 2004 1:50:21 PM
Oh, and one more thing - I'm pretty sure that Jacob would ackowledge Matt's point. His comment in the linked thread agrees that his analysis was meant more of a justification of the Afghanistan war, not the Iraqi war.
Posted by: Larry M | Sep 23, 2004 1:52:47 PM
The fact that a self-styled "libertarian" can make a case for the Iraq war does not establish that there is a "libertarian" case to be made for the war.
Posted by: Donny | Sep 23, 2004 2:19:08 PM
wvmcl:
"The owl of Minerva flies at dusk." We don't become wise until the end of the day. That's a shame, because it would have been really nice if we had figured out what we were doing before the doing was done.
"The hawk of libertarianism flies at dusk." We can't liberate an unfree country without years and years of coercion and central planning. We have to be forced to be free, with the freedom only coming at dusk (if we are lucky.) But that's a shame, too, because it would have been nice to have been free to frolic under the midday sun.
Of course, there's no real shortcut to either wisdom or freedom. That's why gnosticism and libertarianism are both a fantasy.
Posted by: thurgo | Sep 23, 2004 2:46:36 PM
Larry M - the chain of logic must be analyzed as a continuum of circumstances, not as a set of discrete circumstances. I agree, many libertarians would disagree with our actions looked at discretely and I believe this is an error, not just for libertarians, but also for the left.
Re: #7: as part of the continuum of circumstances you do not have to know it is feasible - just judge that it is the best alternative if you do not know it is unfeasible (is that a good word?). Moral justification really does not enter into it, though we hear that everyday from the right, in that the fact it is the moral thing to do just makes it more palatable.
Posted by: Noodles | Sep 23, 2004 3:28:18 PM
But of course one might deny that the Iraq War was fundamentally about any grand transformative project. Perhaps you maintain it was a simple response to a bona fide security threat.
I think the fundamental point (from my neocon perspective) is that the "grand transformative project" IS THE RESPONSE to the bona fide security threat we face. Accordingly, Matthew is making a false distinction between the two.
Posted by: Al | Sep 23, 2004 3:36:40 PM
One other point, regarding this:
This business about sticking around until Iraq establishes a functioning democracy or for the sake of the well-being of average Iraqis in general reeks of planning and coercion.
I think this is also fundamentally misconceived. Saddam's regime was inherently anti-libertarian, as would be most of the governments (i.e., Iranian or Taliban-like theocracy, Pan-Arab dictator, etc.) that would replace the current government if we are not to install a liberal democracy. Indeed, liberal democracy is THE MOST LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT you can reasonably expect to get in Iraq. Accordingly, it is pro-libertarian to stick around and try to put such a government in place.
Posted by: Al | Sep 23, 2004 3:41:55 PM
"1) States are fundamental rights-bearers who cannot be aggressed against -- which is a really weird thing for libertarians to think."
IIRC, this is not so easy as Levy says, that in some contractarian philosophies, legitimate states are rights-bearers. Will Wilkinson touches on this, but moves pretty quickly to the assumption that the state to be aggressed against is illegitimate, so wasn't helpful to me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 23, 2004 3:54:19 PM
>One could try and pen a lengthy philosophical response
I don't think one is needed. A short one will do.
>Libertarianism is incompatible with any use of force, e.g. it is a variant of pacifism.
There are some pacifist (like, ya know Ghandi, in essence) libertarians. But that's not the usual lot. I'm fine with that.
>Libertarianism is incompatible with any state action, e.g. it is a variant of anarchism. Lots of libertarians think this, but I also deny that only they count as libertarians.
I don't really think this actually means anything. He's just saying that he's a libertarian (proof by assertion) and he allows large carve-outs wherein state action is just dandy. That is, libertarianism as an offshoot of Trotskism - permanant revolution, dictatorship of the pratatariat, followed by some supposed withering way of the state.
Here's the own goal:
>States are fundamental rights-bearers who cannot be aggressed against -- which is a really weird thing for libertarians to think.
I agree. States are not fundamental rights bearers that cannot be aggressed against. He's leaving out the rather large point that the individuals involved in that state ARE fundamental rights bearers, up to and including Saddam Hussein. Otherwise, he's arguing that the rights of a non-fundamental-rights-bearing entity such as a the US government TRUMP the rights of fundamental-rights-bearing entities such as the people of Iraq. Which would then make it wrong that assorted Iraqi INDIVIDUALS are exercising their right to bear arms and resist aggression (or to aggress against a non-fundamental-rights-bearing entity) such as the US Army. Or restate it, unless I missed something in Libertarianism 101 individual Iraqis are perfectly entitled to exercise their right to bear arms and thus vote with automatic weapons fire against aggressors.
Had Mr. Levy wanted to gather up Perle and Frum and the guys and form the First Neo-Conservative Volunteer Assault Brigade and parachute into Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein *I* could hardly object. Hell, I'd probably give them money. Hell, I might've volunteered to go! (The argument that this wouldn't work IS NOT AN EXCUSE. If someone really believed all that WMD crap, and that it posed a threat they should get off their duffs and do something. Not get somebody else to do their work for them.)
(This whole thing is really silly.) Anyways, my theory (historical, not political) is that the US is undergoing a fundamental political realignment, as in 1789, 1861, and 1933. Similar to what happens during an earthquake, people are being bounced out of their foxholes, and then up, down, and sideways. Liberals will become conservatives, neo-conservatives will become hard leftists (of the Mussolini variety), your regular flavor of conservative will become liberals and libertarians will be very very confused. (Note: all political designations should be qualified as 'of a sort'. When the deck is fully resuffled no hand will quite resemble and previous hand.)
We're just about their now. 2008 should seal the deal.
ash
['Donkeys and elephants and um, lizards, oh my!']
Posted by: ash | Sep 23, 2004 4:37:51 PM
"I think this is also fundamentally misconceived. Saddam's regime was inherently anti-libertarian, as would be most of the governments (i.e., Iranian or Taliban-like theocracy, Pan-Arab dictator, etc.) that would replace the current government if we are not to install a liberal democracy. Indeed, liberal democracy is THE MOST LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT you can reasonably expect to get in Iraq. Accordingly, it is pro-libertarian to stick around and try to put such a government in place."
So, if it's okay to coerce me, through taxation, to support continued military action aimed no longer at ending a potential threat to my wellbeing, but rather at improving the lives of others by establishing a form of government which I may or may not agree with in a far-off region of the world, why is it wrong to do so in order to improve the lives of others by giving them a reasonable monthly income while unemployed?
Posted by: Davon | Sep 23, 2004 5:11:36 PM
To accept the legitimacy of the state is to accept the legitimacy of violence. Thus, to truly subscribe to pacifism, one necessarily subscribes to anarchism, although the reverse is certainly not true. In the final analysis, the vast majority of those who describe themselves as pacifists really are not; they just want violence to be applied in the manner they prefer, and that tiny set of true pacifists would in short order be reduced to room temperature if they were to ever succeed in bringing about the world they seek.
Posted by: Will Allen | Sep 23, 2004 5:14:56 PM
Noodles,
I have a number of problems with your argument; I’ll focus on only a few because I want to spend some time with my daughter. Forget the “morality” argument for a second; not that you are correct (at least from a libertarian perspective), but the argument is complex, and I don’t have the time. Let’s talk about feasibility.
Now I doubt that you are saying that the “continuum of circumstances” undercuts the argument that forced democratization is not feasible. If anything, most reasonable people, even hawks, would agree that the democratization goal has become less feasible over time, given the mistakes made during the occupation. That is, circumstances have made the goal less feasible. I suppose there may be a few people out there who are cocooned enough to deny this, but I sure as heck don’t hear anyone arguing that circumstances have made the goal MORE feasible.
What I assume that you are arguing is that, whatever feasibility objections one might have, given the current facts on the ground, we have no alternative but to try. Now that was to me (a liberal) a persuasive argument a year ago. It’s a less persuasive argument to me now, and I can’t see it ever being a very persuasive argument to a true libertarian. Why? Because a true libertarian would assign a probability of zero to the forced democratization scheme working, especially now. And if that’s the case, the “continuum of circumstances” doesn’t matter.
But there are really two discrete issues here – what should we have done, and what do we do now, given the facts on the ground? Your argument is only addressing the second question.
Which leads us to the larger issue. Matt isn’t really talking about “libertarians” (if there are any) who have reluctantly concluded, given the course of events, that trying to bring democracy to Iraq is the least bad option. He’s talking about “libertarians” who have, pretty much from the start, bought into the whole neocon wet dream. As to those “libertarians,” steps 4 to 7 of your list are pretty much irrelevant. They bought into it before any of that had occurred. Matt’s simple point, and I think it’s pretty much unanswerable, is that there is no way a true libertarian could buy into that scheme and remain a libertarian. It would be like a communist buying into market capitalism because he became convinced it was the most efficient economic system – surely plausible, but he would no longer be a communist.
Posted by: Larry M | Sep 23, 2004 5:15:37 PM
Larry M, others,
You've basically said that because I think that intervention may be the only way to defeat the threat against the United States, I'm not _really_ entitled to call myself a libertarian is interesting. *cough*NoTrueScotsman*cough* Because from my perspective, what that seems to imply is that if North Korea were to launch a missile and hit our soveriegn land, we would not have the right to go send troops over there, kick the shit out of them and then proceed to occupy and remake North Korea as a democratic state.
In my opinion, reasonable people can disagree about whether the threat from terrorists justified that kind of attack on Iraq. I personally felt that it did, based on what I heard (and had no reason to believe was false because it was bipartisan). But to say that I'm not libertarian because I think it's ok for us to spend treasure to go kick the shit out of a country that seemed strongly linked to terrorists seems absurd.
Oh, and to the other comment - 1) I never said theocracy - I said despotic. 2) I said that converting to Islam is one way to reduce/eliminate Islamic terror attacks, not that we will inevitably reach that point.
And while our "leave them alone unless they screw with us" model worked at one point, time and technology seem to have reduced the effectiveness of that strategy.
Posted by: jb | Sep 23, 2004 5:17:35 PM
It seems to me that most governing philosophies--be they conservative, liberal, libertarian, Marxist, or communitarian--have historically been developed with domestic concerns in mind. It should come as no surprise that when applied to foreign policy (the anarchy of states) they often provide little reliable guide. It also seems unfair to hold libertarians to the standard of "no coercion ever." Of course, it is in part their own fault, since many libertarians do say this on occassion. At the very least, however, the protection of property rights requires a great amount of state coercion (see US prison population).
Finally, there is no Nicene Creed of libertarianism. It is rather a loose knit intellectual movement and tradition of political philosophy that shares tendencies and assumptions, but contains multiple contradictions. The same is true for most political philosophies.
Posted by: catfish | Sep 23, 2004 5:27:04 PM
Davon, until the people of the Persian Gulf are governed through some form of consent, the people of the U.S. will be threatened. The oil of the region is vital to the world economy. It will be extracted, all fantasies and good wishes aside. The open question is how many people will be killed in that process.
If the oil is extracted via accomadating and trading with dictators, be they secular or theocratic, the people of the Persian Gulf will be in conflict with people of the United States, and that conflict will nearly inevitably express itself with a mass attack on the people of the United States, with destructive technology that is on the precipice of becoming ubiquitous. At that point, the logic of 21st century total war will prevail, with the attendant body count.
If the oil can be extracted with the consent of the people of the region, which is an arduous task without any guarantee of success, then this outcome may be avoided. It ain't much of a hand, but it is the one that has to be played.
Posted by: Will Allen | Sep 23, 2004 5:30:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
