|
Randy
Barnett: Pro War Libertarian?
DIGG THIS
Suppose Paul
Ehrlich was to renounce his views on overpopulation. Or a leading
Marxist was to accept the legitimacy of capitalism. Or a rabbi was
to claim that eating pork is compatible with the Talmud. Or Dick
Cheney was to advocate an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. There
would be great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the environmental,
Marxist, Jewish and neoconservative communities, respectively. Charges
of "turncoat," and "traitor," would fill the
air. Members of each of these groups would reason that while it
would almost be acceptable for members of the great unwashed to
articulate sentiments of these sorts, it would leave them horror
stricken that a prominent member of their own movements could be
guilty of so great a defection.
Something
of this sort has recently occurred in the libertarian movement.
Randy E. Barnett has recently published an
article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Libertarians
and the War: Ron Paul doesn't speak for all of us." While Professor
Barnett could not fairly be characterized as a leader of this movement,
he certainly is (or at least was) one of its more high-profile practitioners.
Even did libertarianism not have so few advocates, each one would
still be very precious, given that this perspective is the last
best hope for justice, economic prosperity and indeed, the survival
of the human race. That this episode occurs while we are still relatively
weak, but on an upward trajectory (thanks most recently to the magnificent
efforts of Ron Paul), makes it even more shameful.
Barnett
attacks libertarianism on its most basic postulate; the nonaggression
axiom (NAP). This is the lynchpin of the entire enterprise. It is
a litmus test for libertarians to oppose the initiation (or threat)
of violence against those who have themselves not been guilty of
such an evil act. In rejecting the NAP, nay, perverting it, this
legal scholar can no longer be considered a libertarian. It is my
utmost hope, however, that he will reconsider his rash remarks and
once again join the libertarian movement. The world cries out for
liberty, and Barnett in the past has been a stalwart contributor
to this cause. He can be, once again. This response is an attempt
to promote just that result.
This
author starts out on a strange note: Thanks to Ron Paul, "…many
Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify
it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq…" Strident?
Ron Paul? A more soft-spoken, thoughtful and judicious politician
would be hard to imagine.
In Barnett’s
view, the exchange between Paul and Giuliani redounded to the latter’s
benefit: "It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to
imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president."
"Forceful?" Yes. But "articulate?" Give us a
break. He, rather, exposed himself as a demagogue who simply had
not done his homework. Indeed, Dr. Paul later held a press conference
offering the New York City Mayor a reading list for his edification.
As for Giuliani’s out of turn interjection, one wonders just who
was in charge of the loudspeaker microphone system that allowed
this outburst.
Mr. Barnett
characterizes Ron Paul as "until then … a rather marginal member
of the 10-man Republican field." True, if you count polls of
people who had never heard of this candidate. But our former libertarian
forgets all about electronic results; there, Dr. Paul has been anything
but "rather marginal." He also finds "striking"
Paul’s linkage of "almost every question put to him – even
friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty –
to the war." First of all, there were no "friendly questions"
put to Paul. The moderator was visibly biased against this libertarian
candidate (and so was the wielder of the sound system). Second,
any libertarian worth his salt would see a connection, a strong
one, between this execrable war and precisely those issues. But
Barnett evidently sees no connection between war expenses and taxes,
which seems very "striking" to me. Barnett evidently sees
no connection between the liberty-sapping Patriot Act and loss of
habeas corpus and this war either, which also appears rather "striking."
These issues are irrelevant to his libertarian credentials, but
his view of them certainly places his understanding of economics
and current events in a poor light.
We now arrive
at the core of my disagreement with this author. He states, "Does
being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the
Iraq war? The simple answer is ‘no.’" In my view, in contrast,
the simple answer, the no-brainer answer, is a clear and resounding
"yes." What is Barnett’s reasoning? Let us take this bit
by bit.
First, he says:
"But like all libertarians, even Mr. Paul believes in the fundamental,
individual right of self-defense, which is why libertarians like
him overwhelmingly support the right to keep and bear arms. And
most also believe that when the territory of the U.S. is attacked
militarily, the government – which claims a monopoly on providing
for national defense and extracts billions of tax dollars for this
purpose – is justified in using the military in self-defense. For
this reason, many libertarians (though not all) who now oppose the
war in Iraq supported U.S. military actions against the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan, which had aided and harbored the al Qaeda
network that organized the 9/11 attack."
There are several
problems here. Why is it that even Mr. Paul believes in self-defense?
This implies that there is some dispute amongst libertarians as
to pacifism, and that Ron Paul only reluctantly eschews this viewpoint.
Not so, not so, not at all so.
Then, the point
must be made that it is one thing if, entirely out of the blue,
an enemy attacks the U.S. Then, yes, the libertarian would have
no objection to a strong defense, compatible with just war theory,
and, indeed, retaliation. Our revolutionary war is one case in point.
However, suppose there were a series of entirely unprovoked "abuses
and usurpations" on the part of invasive country A against
victimized country B. Finally, B has had enough, and retaliates
against A. In street vernacular, A "started up" but B
only "got even." A is entirely in the wrong, not B. Then,
is it justified on libertarian grounds for A to escalate matters
further, and further attack B? Barnett to the contrary notwithstanding,
it is not. This is a far more accurate rendition of the 9/11 attack
and the aftermath than that furnished by Barnett. The U.S. had been
for decades making unwarranted and unprovoked attacks in
the near east. It had stationed soldiers in the foreign lands of
countries that had never even come close to threatening or actually
invading us. Any support of U.S. military action "against the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan" thus cannot be justified on
libertarian grounds. (Some might say that there were those
in these countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who had invited
American armed forces to occupy their lands. True enough. But it
is hardly a libertarian notion to acquiesce in such "invitations.")
Al Qaeda was certainly unjustified in killing some 3,000 innocent
people in New York City. However, anyone with even the slightest
passion for justice must never forget that prior to that
horrendous event the U.S. had murdered vastly more innocents in
Arab and Muslim countries.
Mr. Barnett’s
ire at "Afghanistan, which had aided and harbored the al Qaeda
network that organized the 9/11 attack" is surely misdirected.
Remember, we started up first. However unjustified, they
were attempting to even up the score. As well, fifteen of the nineteen
terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center massacre came
from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, even less so from Iraq,
which had nothing whatever to do with this horrid blood letting.
(Not that the U.S. would have been justified in attacking the Saudis
on this ground. After all, another mass murderer, Tim McVeigh, was
from New York State, but only he, not all inhabitants of the Empire
State, was responsible for his nefarious deeds.)
Randy Barnett
next steps into the batter’s box with this: "But here is the
rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense,
and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S.
territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and
the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate
and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military
defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which
reasonable libertarians may differ greatly."
I regard
this as an evasion. It cannot be denied that "a military defense
strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable
libertarians may differ greatly." But the point is we have
yet to establish that what the US government was doing was defense.
If it is true that America started first, then what we
were doing after 9/11 was not defense. It was, rather, a
further escalation of a conflagration we had started. Barnett
does not offer any reason to believe that post-9/11 military action
of the U.S. was defense. Indeed, he shows no awareness that
his case depends entirely on that being true.
This brings
us, finally, to Iraq. On this matter, Barnett states the following:
"Many
libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed
the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam's
regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported
the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also
feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may
also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the
government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive
in nature.
"Other
libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they
viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic
jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government.
They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part
from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East,
which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers.
Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians
believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the
Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War
II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy
rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack."
I am entirely
in accord with this first paragraph. This is a reasonably accurate
assessment of the libertarian position on the matter, the only
libertarian position on the matter. The second paragraph, however,
is a logical howler. There is no "other libertarian" who
could believe any such thing. To the extent he did adopt this perspective,
he could not be a libertarian.
Let us
consider in some detail the supposedly libertarian claim we should
"take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward
off the next attack." What next attack? The horrific
events of 9/11 were in response to prior western attacks
on Arab territory. Had we not first started up with them,
they would not be retaliating against us. These people (yes, they
are people) are not attacking us because of our freedoms, because
of the fact that we allow mini skirts and rock and roll music. There
are numerous countries where such activities are practiced, and
have not been attacked. No, as Ron Paul has been at great pains
to explain to Barnett’s hero, Rudy Giuliani, this is blowback.
Surprisingly,
Barnett himself acknowledges no less: "To a libertarian, any
effort at ‘nation building’ seems to be just another form of central
planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended
consequences and the danger of blowback (emphasis added)."
How, then,
can Barnett coherently talk of "tak(ing) the fight to the enemy
rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack." It
surpasseth all understanding. The "next attack" will emanate
from our continued aggression against them, as did the previous
one. If we cease and desist, apologize, and pay compensation due
to them, they will in one fell swoop stop attacking us.
To construe
our invasion of Iraq as "defensive" is to so totally misconstrue
what "defense" is as to violate not only libertarian principle,
but even common sense. Iraq, as opposed to the perpetrators of the
unjustified bloodbath of 9/11, not only never attacked us, they
never even threatened to do so. For us to initiate an invasion
of their country was thus not defense; it was offense.
Preemptive
war of the sort advocated by ex-libertarian Barnett is the foreign
analog of domestic preventive detention. I note that males between
the ages of 15 and 25 commit a disproportionately high number of
crimes. Why wait to "ward off the next attack" by this
age sex cohort? Why not "take the fight to (this domestic)
enemy? Can I as a libertarian advocate that we lock up every
male in the country at age 15, regardless of whether they have
committed a crime, and set them free at age 25? I cannot, and still
remain a libertarian. Well, then, neither can Barnett, qua libertarian,
support a policy of "tak(ing) the fight to the enemy (who never
attacked us) rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack."
Barnett
next delivers himself of this opinion:
"Moreover,
the pro-war libertarians believed there was ‘legal’ cause to take
military action against Saddam's regime – from its manifold violations
of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling
the ‘no-fly’ zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with
weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its
unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that
it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal
by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish
an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the
Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops."
There are
several objections here. First, "Pro-war libertarians"
is a contradiction in terms. There can logically be no such thing
in the present context.
Second, Barnett,
himself, has in the past been active among libertarians in distinguishing
that which is legal or illegal from that which is compatible with
libertarianism, or not. For example, smoking pot is now illegal
in the U.S. But, certainly, so doing is consistent with the NAP
of libertarianism. Barnett, when he was a prosecuting attorney in
Chicago, and a libertarian, was not very happy with the prospect
of incarcerating a person for breaking this law. But now, shockingly,
he is relying upon what is legal, not that which is compatible with
the libertarian law code. He has become a legal positivist it would
appear, supporting the notion that what is legal is therefore for
that reason proper. But, can the legislature, or the courts, never
make a mistake? This would appear to be the implication of Mr. Libertarian
Barnett.
I will not
debate with Barnett whether or not the "no fly" zone was
legal. I concede this to him. But it by no means follows that the
"legal" no-fly zone is compatible with libertarianism.
Barnett claims to still be a libertarian. Yet, he argues not
that the no fly zone was compatible with libertarianism, merely
that it was "legal," according to U.S. law (which he when
he was a libertarian rejected when it comes to addictive drugs,
prostitution, and other such victimless crimes).
Third, according
to Barnett, all we need do is set up "no fly" zones anywhere
we want; say, in China or Chile, in Venezuela or Venus for that
matter. Then, if the Chinese, Chileans, Venezuelans or Venusians
disobey us and take to the air over their own territory, they are
committing aggression against us, and we may bomb them as a defensive
matter. This seems highly problematic, to say the least. Suppose
that the Chinese, Chileans, Venezuelans or Venusians set up "no
fly" zones in the U.S. When we disobeyed them, as a violation
of our sovereignty, according to Barnett’s "logic," then
these countries, or worlds, as in the case of Venus, would be justified
in bombing us, and could claim they were only defending themselves.
One is at a loss to know what to say of this, from an eminent legal
theorist.
Fourth, Barnett
bases his entire justification of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the
basis of our defending ourselves. How in bloody blue blazes can
this be squared with his objection to "Saddam's regime's …
unprovoked invasion of Kuwait." Stipulate, arguendo, that Saddam
was unjustified in attacking Kuwait. Forget about the fact that
he was for many years, "our" man, certainly during the
Iraqi-Iranian War. Please explain how this somehow constitutes a
threat or an actual attack on the U.S., Barnett’s justification
for our invasion of Iraq.
Another
problem with the Barnett piece is that he strongly implies that
Abraham Lincoln, who "… promptly replace(d his) military commanders
… when it became clear that … (their) … tactics were not working"
was virtuous, or acted in a manner compatible with libertarianism.
Yet, as Tom
DiLorenzo and others have shown, this is exactly the opposite
of the truth. On this ground alone Barnett’s libertarian credentials
become highly suspect.
Let me
say a word about the fact that Barnett’s article implies things,
but does not clearly state them. For example, he never quite comes
out and claims to be a pro Iraq war libertarian; on the other hand,
this is clearly his intention. I find this rather evasive.
In his conclusion,
Randy Barnett says: "These (pro-invasion) libertarians are
still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans
more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against
those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans
may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the
Iraq war – as Ron Paul does – and even that libertarianism itself
dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation
inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that
would promote the general welfare of the American people."
There are grave
problems here, as there were all throughout.
First, what
is this business of "mak(ing) Americans more safe"? Supposedly,
the entire justification for this war, at least on libertarian grounds,
was that it was an instance of self-defense. There are ways
to make the citizens of this country safer that have nothing to
do with that goal. For example, if we outright murdered every single
solitary inhabitant of the entire earth, apart from Americans of
course, we would probably be "more safe." Let us stipulate
that this is so. According the Barnett’s conclusion, this would
now be justified. And, mirabile dictu, on libertarian grounds! No,
libertarianism justifies defense and only defense,
not necessarily becoming "more safe." Let me put this
in other words: the best way to ensure our safety is to follow the
dictums of two of our founding fathers:
Thomas Jefferson:
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling
alliances with none." John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not
abroad seeking monsters to destroy." "We favor the freedom
of all nations, but will fight, only, to protect our own."
Second, no
one "declared war on the U.S." Nor, to be clear, has the
U.S. recently "declared war" on anyone else. If this is
to be done in a manner consistent with the law that Barnett
elsewhere supports, then a declaration of war must be passed by
congress, at least according to the U.S. constitution. Ron Paul
has many times called for a vote on this matter, but to no avail.
One might be excused for expecting Barnett to support Paul in this
regard, but if so one would be disappointed.
I certainly
agree with Barnett’s contention that "a wider acceptance of
the libertarian principles … would promote the general welfare of
the American people." But I cannot bring myself to believe
that all libertarians do not oppose this war. Those who support
this undeclared, invasive, offensive, imperialist war simply are
not libertarians.
But wait. Perhaps
I am being too harsh. After all, if libertarianism applies to, say,
500 issues, and a person consistently and fully applies the NAP
to, say, 495 of them, can he not be considered a libertarian, despite
these few deviations? After all, there are disputes between fully
credentialed libertarians on issues such as abortion, immigration,
incitement and voluntary slave contracts. In general, I would answer
in the affirmative on this matter. I am nothing if not a "big
tent" libertarian.
But a perversion
of the very meaning of "defense," and hence, the NAP itself,
is another matter. Entirely a different matter. It is as if a man
rejects the Holy Trinity, and claims to be a Catholic; rejects 2+2=4,
and claims to be a mathematician; rejects the Pythagorean theorem,
and claims to be a geometrician. These things are simply too close
to the core beliefs of the several philosophies to admit of any
demurrers from those who claim to be adherents.
 Who
am I to read anyone out of the libertarian movement? Who appointed
me boss? No one. I can only speak for myself. I can only give my
own views on this or indeed any other matter. My claims stand or
fall not on the basis of who I am, but rather stem from what I say,
and the reasons I put forth in support of them.
 The
Randy Barnett I knew for at least four decades would not be capable
of penning anything like that disgraceful Wall Street Journal
article. I can only hope that he wrote it in a fit of pique, or
that some other explanation of this sort is the correct one. It
is my fervent hope he will next write a refutation of it. We need
him back in the libertarian movement.
July
23, 2007
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
