How would have Libertarians reacted to Pearl Harbor?

[R. Shackleferd]

I'm very curious since war and nuking is always automatically rejected on principle by libertarians.

 

[TexasSam13]

I'm very curious since war and nuking is always automatically rejected on principle by libertarians.

Since when? You're thinking of Marxists.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

I'm thinking about Rothbard who believes that the Revolution is the only justified war the US was involved in.
I'm thinking about Jacob Heubert who wrote this, Why Libertarians Oppose War by Jacob H. Huebert -- Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwel and every other libertarian who practically believes that reactionary force against aggression is in violation of the non aggression principle. Since I haven't heard of any solutions to when aggression is used from people outside of our jurisdiction I'm left to assume with doubt that many libertarians support a "turn the other cheek" philosophy more than they support nonaggression. Hence my asking about Pearl Harbor.

 

[Cold Highway]

Libertarians always support wars of defense. Its current neo-con/neo-lib cluster**** of a foreign policy we object to.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

And what is that foreign policy and why do libertarians object to it?

 

[Cold Highway]

And what is that foreign policy and why do libertarians object to it?

1. Military Socialism - Several bases all over the world protecting countries that can provide their own defense.

2. Willisonian Idealism - Going to war with pissant nations who arent a threat at all to us but thinking that bring the democratic process to them will all of a sudden make them super allies

Its a policy that does nothing but gives the government an excuse to waste tax payer money and at the same time crush our liberties under the pathetic guise of security.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

so we can only react against a nation that is deemed to be a big enough threat while small threats are allowed to get away with their acts of aggression.

 

[Psychoclown]

First off a disclaimer. I'm not the typical libertarian when it comes to foreign policy. The international arena is in many ways a Hobbesian "state of nature". There is no higher authority to rely upon to establish order and security. The UN tries, but lacks the authority and power, especially when it comes to restraining the more powerful nations. So with no authority capable of securing order among nations, the international arena is essentially every man for himself. Therefor the US can and should do whatever is in best interests of its citizens.

So we can respond to any threat to our interests or security, but benefit of our response needs to outweigh the cost. I believe most of the time our interests are best served by minding our own business and not meddling in the affairs of other nations. The truth is most of these so called "small threat" nations are in reality no threat at all to the U.S. I fully support the declaration of war against Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack, and would've supported any and all means necessary to bring about victory, including the decision to use nuclear weapons.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

The truth is most of these so called "small threat" nations are in reality no threat at all to the U.S.

What does this mean? When a country of small or no threat does something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11, do we just go "well, since these people don't belong to a national organization, we're just going to let them kill us and destroy our property and we'll just cut our loses." ?

 

[PeteEU]

There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.

 

[Xerographica]

You're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist who drooled over a theoretical button that when pushed would abolish the entire government in one fell swoop. So your argument was basically a straw man fallacy...intentional or accidental...I have no idea.

Libertarians recognize the necessity of the state in preserving order. To summarize Oliver Wendell Holmes summarizing John Stuart Mill's harm principle...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. If somebody punches your nose then that person would be arrested, tried and sent to jail if convicted. Japan punching us in the nose warranted the same response...but obviously on a much larger scale.

 

[Gardener]

Without lewrockwell dot com to guide them?


They'd be lost.

 

[Erod]

There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.

Oh good lord.

 

[Coronado]

There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.

I don't suppose you would care to bolster that assertion with logic or facts, would you?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

1. Military Socialism - Several bases all over the world protecting countries that can provide their own defense.

Weird, I thought the military bases benefitted us. But whatevs, I'm sure its those pissant nations vying for a free ride.

 

[Psychoclown]

What does this mean? When a country of small or no threat does something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11, do we just go "well, since these people don't belong to a national organization, we're just going to let them kill us and destroy our property and we'll just cut our loses." ?

Not at all. I was speaking of potential threats, such as Iraq before we invaded. Iraq realistically posed no threat to us. They were well contained thanks the embargo. But we kept yammering on about the axis of evil and such, so we ended up invading them when they posed no potential threat to the U.S.

As for when a potential threat turns into an active threat like Al Queda. That's a whole different ballgame. Once someone actually attacks American soil, or American lives or property, we must react swiftly and deliever our full wrath and vengence to demonstrate why it is never a good idea to attack America or her interests. I have absolutely no problems with the decision to invade Afghanistan or to topple Al Queda's state sponsor, the Taliban. I do think our continued efforts at nation building in Afghanistan are a waste of time and money. If Afghanistan's people are too fractured, too corrupt, and too violent to form a stable society, that's not really our problem. I'd have no problem pulling out of Afghanistan and letting the chips fall where they may, with the promise that if the Taliban returned to power we'd return to shove some more cruise missiles up their collective hindquarters.

 

[Psychoclown]

There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.

Your view of America and particularly the American right is so warped and distorted I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond. Probably because I have nothing better to do right now.

While there were some folks sympathetic to the Nazis, they were a distinct minority, and a shrinking one as the war developed and then raged on. American sympathies as a whole were always with the Allies. The majority of American politicians at the time were isolationist and wanted nothing to do with the war on either side. They saw it as a European conflict that had nothing to do with us. The chances of an American/German alliance, no matter which side was in power, were roughly equal to zero.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

You're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. --- So your argument was basically a straw man fallacy --- Libertarians recognize the necessity of the state in preserving order.

Libertarianism is individual sovereignty and the honoring of nonaggression which anarcho-capitalism also is.
Rothbard was heavily involved with the Libertarian Party.
Libertarianism is not an advocacy of the state, classical liberalism is and it is a strawman to use the terms interchangeably.
The reason why it is used interchangeably is that regardless of what you think of the State, the State exists and libertarians get elected to run it. It would require generations of libertarians to bring our state back into classical liberalism, confederate minarchism, and eventually the state would turn from a state and into a voluntarily legal association.
Anarcho-capitalism would still have a defense agency that could respond to something like Pearl Harbor.

 

[Xerographica]

R. Shackleferd, a "straw man" is easier to attack than a "real man". Rothbard is easier to attack than Adam Smith...

From Public Sector Economics for Developing Countries by Michael Howard...

Although Smith was against governmental interference with the market, he had a a theory of government sometimes known as the "duties of the sovereign". The system of natural liberty required the sovereign to perform three duties; defense, the exact administration of justice, and the erection and maintenance of public works. Even though he was a libertarian, Smith realized that the market could not provide certain public goods which were too expensive for provision by private individuals.
​

...or Herbert Spencer...

And now mark that whether we consider government from this point of view, or from that previously occupied, our conclusions respecting it are in essence identical. For when government fulfils the function here assigned it, of retaining men in the circumstances to which they are to be adapted, it fulfils the function which we on other grounds assigned it — that of protector. To administer justice, — to mount guard over men's rights, — is simply to render society possible. And seeing that the two definitions are thus at root the same, we shall be prepared for the fact that, in whichever way we specify its duty, the State cannot exceed that duty without defeating itself. For, if regarded as a protector, we find that the moment it does anything more than protect, it becomes an aggressor instead of a protector; and, if regarded as a help to adaptation, we find that when it does anything more than sustain the social state, it retards adaptation instead of hastening it.​

...or Ludwig Von Mises...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.​

...or Friedrich Hayek...

From Friedrich Hayek: a biography By Alan O. Ebenstein...

These words were even more significant because of the government services to which he applied them - "without exception to all those services of which government possesses a legal monopoly, with the only exception of maintaining and enforcing the law and maintaining for this purpose an armed force, i.e. all those from education to transport and communications, including post, telegraph, telephone and broadcasting services, all the so-called 'public utilities,' the various 'social' insurances and, above all, the issue of money." In the last pages of Law, Legislation and Liberty, published in 1979, Hayek the classical liberal became Hayek the libertarian.​

...or Ayn Rand...

The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.​

...or Milton Friedman...

First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major functions must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought.​

...or Robert Nozick...

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.​

...or David Boaz...

Libertarians argue that we can and should move a long way toward minimal government; outside of the protection of our rights by police, courts, and national defense, it's hard to think of goods and services that could be produced more efficiently by a government bureaucracy than in the competitive marketplace.​

From classical liberals to libertarians the pattern is clearly one of limited government. Limited government is a considerably easier position to defend compared to no government. That's why it's in the best interests of anti-libertarians to blur the lines between anarchists and libertarians...and exactly why it's in the best interests of pro-libertarians to make sure those lines are not blurred.

According to the libertarian Spencer Jayden, "What can't be denied is how liberals managed to move government policy in a left direction for almost a 100 years, so slowly that they never earned the scorn libertarians do." "Scorn" is a really great word to describe voters' opinions on any type of ideology that advocates abolishing government for any reason.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Well gee whiz! I'm going to be a total statist now because a handful of libertarians advocate a minimal version of the state.
I too think we need a minimal state. I want a state so minimal that it's laws are not absolute and it's contributions to it are voluntary.

Tell me why the libertarian party says, "where governments exist"?

Should I set these strawmen on fire and post quotes from libertarians who advocate abolishment of the state ?

There is nothing wrong with classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists sharing the same tent and waving the same banner so long as neither one of them support a platform of government expansion and the throwing away of individual sovereignty.

 

[Coronado]

There would never have been a Pearl Harbour if Libertarians were in power back then, since they most likely would have (like most American politician's at the time) supported Nazi Germany/Japan and joined the alliance against the UK. Thank god for Roosevelt.

I don't suppose you would care to bolster that assertion with logic or facts, would you?

Didn't think you would, as usual. :sarcasticclap

 

[Xerographica]

Ever read that Calvin and Hobbes comic strip where Calvin answers the phone? The person on the other end asks Calvin if he can speak to his father...to which Calvin replies something like...sheesh, you don't need my permission...and then he promptly hangs up the phone.

You don't need my permission to post anarcho-capitalist quotes. Having debated with enough anarcho-capitalists in the past...chances are pretty good that none of your quotes will include arguments that I haven't already heard. But don't let that stop you.

Your type of minimal state already exists...it's called Afghanistan. I spent a year there. Uh, no thanks. You should really check it out...better hurry though because we're in the process of helping them implement a true minimal government. Well...you probably don't have to hurry too much. Supporting the development of a national government requires a national identity. Afghans have absolutely no national identity...just a tribal identity.

Understanding the relationship between a central government and national identity is essential to understanding why anarcho-capitalism would most likely lead to tribalism. The central government is the basis of a national identity. It's the glue that holds us together. Arbitrary lines on a map obviously do not create a sense of national identity.

Practically speaking it's a moot point though because we live in a democracy. Governmental coercion forces people to invest in the common good...but government is merely a reflection of what people want. For the past 100 years people have wanted more...not less...investment in the common good. This means it's nearly impossible that libertarianism will ever be realized and completely impossible that anarcho-capitalism would be realized. Well...at least with our current system.

The only way that anarcho-capitalism has a chance of being realized is through pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would allow people to decide which public goods they support with their taxes. This would force the public sector (socialism) to compete directly with the private sector (anarcho-capitalism) for the provision of public goods.

For example, you could start a voluntary organization (non-profit) dedicated to providing public education. As more and more people donated money to your organization then less and less people would allocate their taxes to government organizations dedicated to public education. As the government produced less public education then this would increase the pressure to lower the tax rate.

Of course, capital for public goods could flow the opposite direction as well. Given the high cost of private healthcare, more and more people would allocate their taxes to public healthcare. The money that they saved would go back into the economy and increase the total amount of tax revenue that the government collected.

Competition is always good for consumers.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

I have no idea, but I bet it has something to do with the invisible hand.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

You don't need my permission to post anarcho-capitalist quotes. Having debated with enough anarcho-capitalists in the past...chances are pretty good that none of your quotes will include arguments that I haven't already heard. But don't let that stop you.

Quotes don't win me over so I figure they wouldn't for others. The nonaggression axiom is what makes libertarianism libertarian however. There isn't a consensus on what is and what isn't aggressive. I believe that artificial state monopolies are coercive.

Your type of minimal state already exists...it's called Afghanistan. I spent a year there. Uh, no thanks. You should really check it out...better hurry though because we're in the process of helping them implement a true minimal government. Well...you probably don't have to hurry too much. Supporting the development of a national government requires a national identity. Afghans have absolutely no national identity...just a tribal identity.

It's an identity that sympathizes with Islam and other Afghan culture. Anarchy and minarchism and statism(although less so) relies on society to be nonaggressive and to advance technologically freely in order for any of the 3 to work. At least in a stateless society a group of individuals can associate freely to create a nonmonopolistic legal system.

Understanding the relationship between a central government and national identity is essential to understanding why anarcho-capitalism would most likely lead to tribalism. The central government is the basis of a national identity. It's the glue that holds us together. Arbitrary lines on a map obviously do not create a sense of national identity.

Tribalism does not indicate that the individual is sovereign and it can't be considered anarchy if the tribe has authoritative law that it imposes on others involuntarily. Anarcho-capitalism was a term coined by Rothbard to describe a stateless society of sovereign individuals. An individuals sovereignty is violated when aggressive entities infringe upon the individuals sovereignty through force or coercion. There's also argument on what is and what isn't true anarchism, another term that is debated similar to aggression. Islamic tribalism in Afghanistan may be stateless but it is most certainly authoritative and cannot be considered a society comparable to any individualist anarchism.

Practically speaking it's a moot point though because we live in a democracy. Governmental coercion forces people to invest in the common good...but government is merely a reflection of what people want.

And I reject what the people want because I am not the people when the people vote for coercion.

For the past 100 years people have wanted more...not less...investment in the common good. This means it's nearly impossible that libertarianism will ever be realized and completely impossible that anarcho-capitalism would be realized. Well...at least with our current system.

^

The only way that anarcho-capitalism has a chance of being realized is through pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would allow people to decide which public goods they support with their taxes. This would force the public sector (socialism) to compete directly with the private sector (anarcho-capitalism) for the provision of public goods.

This would be an economic war where the individuals sovereignty is being infringed by taxes.

For example, you could start a voluntary organization (non-profit) dedicated to providing public education. As more and more people donated money to your organization then less and less people would allocate their taxes to government organizations dedicated to public education. As the government produced less public education then this would increase the pressure to lower the tax rate.

I understand what you're saying but in order for this to be an even playing field, the State would need to repeal it's decision on making school compulsory. It's still unfair because the funding for government is guaranteed by extortion while donors who are being taxed may contribute less because of the tax expense.

Competition is always good for consumers.

Especially if none of the competitors were extorting money, laundering it and using their monopoly on law to insure this. It would be more fitting if the mafia were competing against the state.

 

[Xerographica]

R. Shackleferd, the US is so incredibly diverse...numerous cultures, races and religions...all coexisting in relative harmony. The government is the only thing that keeps us from killing each other. Capitalism cannot provide safety and security on the national level. It can't even function without stability and order...any book on capitalism will make this clear. As China is clearly demonstrating...the government doesn't even have to be a democracy...it just has to be strong enough to deal with any domestic threats.

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism because all anarchists are anti-capitalists. Any anarchists that are capitalists are actually anarcho-capitalists. Along those same lines... anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism because any libertarians that want to abolish the state are actually anarcho-capitalists.

Can you clarify what school being compulsory has to do with pragmatarianism?