Posted on 10/20/2001 7:27:01 AM PDT by annalex
The libertarian position to that a person may delegate protection of his rights to another entity, such as a government. Your position is delegation "occurs". Who makes it occur? Government? Then it's not delegation at all; it is usurpation of power.
The very notion of foreign policy is anathema to libertarian thought. Washington was quite right to warn against it even if his actions did not quite reflect his words (a characteristic of all politicians and the FFs were no exception).
Defense, both personal and national, is justified from a libertarian standpoint. But the United States was never attacked. Some criminals stole some planes on American soil and turn them into bombs. Of course, we should bring the perpetrators to justice. But this is about justice, not defense.
As for foreign policy, bin Laden claims that he has launched his jihad against the US precisely because the country has a foreign policy - troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing of Iraq, support of Israel. Maybe you should take him at word. This is the consequence of foreign policy - those it is aimed against get mad at you (and by definition foreign policy is always aimed against someone).
Three things are clear: 1) Anarchism is libertarian, however you might like to disown it. 2) The difference between the two forms of libertarianism is not pertinent to this debate. 3) Imperialism and "preventive violence" are not libertarian, not matter how much you gussy them up.
My position is that such delegation should be explicit and voluntary, and of course the reality is that it isn't, as we don't have a libertarian society. We can however, apply libertarian principles to the present reality such as it is. De-facto, delegation of rights protection to the government occurs implicitly as a citizen remains citizen. A withdrawal of consent is possible, and consists of renunciation of citizenship. I believe that this situation is an argument for localization of government because it is easier to move, say, from county to county than to emigrate. Thus (if I may digress) I am opposed to the federalization of domestic policy regardless of other merits, just because it makes withdrawal of consent too painful. In matters of foreign policy, however, I don't see a possibility of its decentralization, and so tough as it is, we do consent to a single foreign policy by virtue of our citizenship.
I agree with your point that this fact would be an argument for minimalist foreign policy. To equate that with "no policy" is wrong. The present circumstances illustrate why: once the defense of rights is delegated, such defense should be maximally effective and vigorous. One can argue, of course, whether the guilt for the 9/11 attack is so indisputably at the feet of bin Laden & Co, but at least in theory, once guilt and/or imminent malicious intent is established, our government has a duty to retaliate for the past agression and preempt future aggression with maximum vigor. Hence, if the government is certain that the threat is concentrated wtih the Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, and it can't obtain the cooperation from that country, it has a duty to wage a war on Afghanistan. If, taking a broader look, our government determines that an imperialist foreign policy is required to ensure our safety, then it should attempt such policy.
It is true that as our government prosecutes the policies I advocate, it will generate a dislike in some quarters. That is equivalent to the dislike a successful entrepreneur generates in others when his success, however rightfully obtained, causes a loss elsewhere; our government should, of course, try to be liked, but not at the expense of its core function of defense of our rights.
Imperialism and "preventive violence" are not libertarian
I hope I expressed adequately how preemptive violence is a necessary element of defense of rights, even when it takes a form of imperialist policy. I understand that "imperialist libertarianism", although also advocated by no less authority than Rand, strikes many as a contradiction in terms today.
Please see #124.
Oh, I see where you are coming from after rereading my own post at #124. "Defense of rights" is any action that keeps the rights intact; when circumstances warrant it could be a military shielding action (also called "defense"), or retaliation, or a preemptive strike (which could be a surprise attack, an offense in the tactical sense of the word).
When confronted by an individual assailant, I may brandish a weapon or take cover behind a locked door in tactical defense. If the assailant commits his assault but is caught by authority he is jailed (or hanged) in retaliation. If the assailant point a gun at me in a threat, I may fire my gun in a preventive act of violence. If the nature of the assault is repetitive, I may ambush him at an opportune moment and strike him preemptively. All these actions are in defense of my rights, but some of them are tactically defensive and some aren't.
what is and what isn't in the Constitution wasn't important to me for two reasons: (1) the article discusses the issue of invasion in general and in application to any country; (2) we all agree that natural law trumps the Constitution, so if invasion is just, but unconstitutional, then the Constitution should be amended accordingly. In #66 I accepted for the time being your interpretation of our Constitution as forbidding foreign invasion.
Now that I had time to check with the document, I can confidently say that your interpretation is unwarranted. The Constitution does not restrict the government to any particular kind of wars.
Article I section 8 allows Congress to declare war. No further restriction on the kind of war. It authorizes Congress to raise and support Armies. No restriction on their purpose, but there is a restriction that appropriations should be made every two years. That doesn't restrict the duration of wars, and of course doesn't restrict the kind of wars. It goes on to authorize provision and maintenance of the Navy. No restriction. Finally, it authorizes calling forth the Militia. The militia's function is restricted to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. So, three branches of the military are established: Armies, Navy, and Militia, and only the militia is restricted in the kind of its warmaking.
For completeness, let me note Article IV Section 4, which charges the federal government with protection of the states from invasion. That is done in the context of defining the federal system. It obligates the federal government to defend the states, but does not limit the role of the military in any way, since the limits, such as there are, are enumerated in Article I Section 8.
To better understand the notion of diplomacy between nations, it is important to understand the use of symbols and re-presentations of things, in this case, nations. A government re-presents a nation's people in their dealings with the governments and peoples of other nations. For example, the government of the United States dealt with the Hitler regime by destroying it, and then sought to help the German people rebuild the physical structures within their national borders and build an actual government to replace the false Nazi government. We need to make distinctions between governments and peoples if we are to understand the requirements for a just foreign policy, along with what constitutes a legitimate government. A legitimate government governs the people of its nation with justice, and also conducts its affairs with other nations on the same basis. A government that does not, is not actually a government, but is a perversion of the nature of government.
The people are responsible for the actions of their government, whether the actions affect some of the citizens of that nation, or the citizens of another nation. The government re-presents the nation, which is to say, the PEOPLE of that nation, as in the words: "We the People of the united states..."
Germany was still Germany when Hitler's illegitimate regime manuvered its way into control of that nation. The Saxons still inhabited Saxony, the Eastern Franks were still in Franconia, the Prussians in Prussia, the Thuringians, some of the Vandals, Suevi, Chatti (Hessians), etc. were still in their ancient places, but now speaking one language, modern German. Germany still existed AFTER the Nazis were deposed from their illegitimate positions ruling Germany. There was STILL a nation, Germany, before and after the Nazi regime. The problem was an unjust goverment that inflicted violence on its own people and its neighboring nations. It was the GOVERNMENT of the nation that had no right to exist, but Germany was still Germany, inhabited by the same tribes that were there when the Romans had to deal with them.
The proper role of government is justice, which is defense of rights and punishment for their violations.
A nation that has a government which usurped power is culturally and ethnically a nation, but is not immune from an invasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.