RE: plantlight
In general, the libertarian excuse for war is that we universally recognize the right of self-defense and if this right is compounded or otherwise multiplied there must be some justification for a public self-defense. Following along, this right (like any right in a free society) can be exchanged through a theory of assignment and agency. Suppose that I have a right to collect apples from your orchard so I can do this myself or I can subcontract or assign this right to another, let’s say Pedro, who is my agent in exercising this right.
The libertarian idea is that because so many people have a right to self-defense that when aggregated there should be some vested ‘public’ right as well and that through agency (an army) we can effect these rights, specifically war.
My own feelings on the matter is that this sort of argument is illogical and doesn’t survive scrutiny.
History or a modicum of reflection shows us that wars are never an extension or multiplication of self-defense. Wars, even when waged on self-defense are disproportionality conducted by the poor who suffer the most on both sides, on behalf of the elites of each side who often have the most to lose but rarely if ever bear the price.
But Ian you dirty pirate, you just said through agency and assignment some individuals will have tons of Pedros where I must pick my own apples (war) so clearly libertarianism accepts that effects will be proportional. We agree, I accept that many will have disproportionate resources with which to defend themselves, my problem is with the choice to employ self-defense in the first place.
Oh you clever swashbuckler! Pro-war Libertarianism would have us surrender the personal choice to that of the collective! A libertarian society should be the sum total of its peaceful and voluntary individual acts. War, even in self-defense, subordinates these considerations to the collective, and leaves us with very difficult questions like;
Whom do we wage war against?
How much proportional force is necessary?
Is the threat imminent?
When can we safely declare cessation to hostilities?
In a pro-war libertarian situation these questions would not remain the sovereignty or choice of the individual but that of single commanding authority or worse (depending on your philosophy) that of a collective.
Ian you are losing me you scoundrel, what if a collective a group of pro-war Libertarians decided to defend themselves collectively and each individual made that decision?
I would argue that this is highly unlikely and even collectively the above questions cannot be correctly answered without some suffering of individual choice or unwanted compromise. Who chooses? Can we get 5 people to agree or 100, what about unanimity?
Even more important I would argue that what happens to the individual that refuses to join in the exercise of this collective right and has not initiated force against the defender, thus triggering the right in the first place?
What if I dissent?
What if I offer moral support to the other side?
What if I remain neutral but still sell weapons and supplies to the enemy?
What if I remain neutral but refuse to supply the pro-war Libertarians?
The answers here are not hypothetical, just look to history how each of these groups are treated by the victor. Answering these questions truthfully will undoubtable involve violations of core principles of Libertarian ideas, which is really just a long way to say why unlike some Libertarians, I personally do not believe there is justification for war, even in self-defense.
Ian you are the Errol Flynn of my moral compass and while I believe you to be terribly naïve I value your gallant defense of your very unpopular opinion.
Author
Topic: Likelihood of teotwawki...in your opinions (Read 21079 times)