The Bionic Mosquito on ‘Libertarian’ Aggression

In a magnificent display of indignation, the “Bionic Mosquito” assails on his blog a “libertarian” argument for intervention against ISIS. Kevin Vallier, a philosopher at Bowling Green University, claimed on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians site that there is a better case to be made for military intervention against ISIS than for most interventions. Intervention, he thinks, would have a good chance of doing more good than harm. ISIS could readily be eliminated, as it is territorially based; and it’s unlikely that whatever regime emerged in its place would be as bad.

The Bionic Mosquito wonders in astonishment: what happened to the Non-Aggression Principle? “Where is the self-defense in such military interventions? To suggest some people 10,000 miles away – who have not harmed a single individual on US soil (which should be rightly an issue of crime, not war – a lesson lost on 911) – have initiated an aggression thereby justifying ‘self-defense’ is a stretch.” He also challenges Vallier’s claim that nothing could be worse than ISIS. How does Vallier know this? Is he not engaged in a dangerous game of “rolling the dice”?

I urge readers to consult the Bionic Mosquito’s post, as I have not been able to convey the rhetorical force of the piece, which is worthy of Mencken. I would add only that it is worth asking why Vallier says “I don’t support intervention.” If I am not mistaken, he does not support the Non-Aggression Principle, whether applied to the conduct of states or persons. He has argued that intervention would likely result in more good than harm. Why then does he fail to support it?

Share

12:04 pm on March 6, 2015