My first exposure to a rigorous defense of liberty was in The Cato Journal, published by the Cato Institute. I came across it almost by accident in the journals section of my college library, and there found an article advocating the abandonment of public education. Nearly a decade later, I found an issue devoted to the legacy of Mises and Hayek, which aroused curiosity leading me to the Mises Institute and eventually to LewRockwell.com. I continue to read Cato’s Daily Commentaries and Daily Dispatches, which have nearly always supported liberty and (to repeat myself) opposed war.
Cato’s Response to 9-11 Since September 11, however, the Cato Institute has given a rousing endorsement of the administration's war on terrorism. Many of the commentaries do, of course, suggest restraint in different areas (controlling the symptoms of the war). But the call to war is unmistakable. One of the early Daily Commentaries simply assumed, without analysis, that “military action is the appropriate response.” Another early comment stated that waging war “is entirely justified,” although the “war” spoken of was that against the terrorists involved. Then appeared a Commentary equating warfare with wealth (later followed by one stating that military action increases stock prices). Then, still early on, David Boaz set the tone for the future, denigrating those who dissent from President Bush's fight as enemies of market freedom. Mr. Boaz’ commentary was interesting. He praised Bill and Hillary Clinton for their patriotism, then desperately attempted to categorize every enemy of war as an enemy of “progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” His first target was Jerry Falwell, for daring to suggest that God might not protect a wicked, godless people. (Boaz edits “abortionists” out of Falwell's comments to suit his point.) Falwell is then lumped in with Bush haters, flag haters, and market haters, all of whom supposedly blame America for the attacks out of a Puritan envy of pleasure, and none of whom address the American evil most obviously linked to terrorism: our government's conduct in the Middle East. Rather than address this argument, Mr. Boaz prefers simply to join Bush in calling America “good” and terrorists “evil.”
So now we know the ethical philosophy of the Cato Institute: when our enemy is indisputably evil, we can deflect without analysis the question of our own evil. This is, apparently, a philosophy much more suited to our times than one now two millennia old. Matt. 7:1-5; Matt. 19:17.
Having taken up the cause of warfare, Cato did not look back. Gary Dempsey took the war cry to its extreme, arguing that terrorists should not be tried, but should be treated as illegal combatants “subject to summary execution upon detection.” The closest support which I have been able to find for this proposition is that illegal combatants are subject to “targeting” just as any other combatant (and thus lose the protections of their apparent civilian status), that captured or surrendered illegal combatants lose prisoner of war status (and thus can be prosecuted under local law), and that illegal combatants can be prosecuted for war crimes. I have found nothing to support “summary execution upon detection” of those not in combat when encountered, though I am open to correction if in error.
Turning from positive law to legal theory, the only strain in liberal theory which could support “summary execution upon detection” would be anarchy. Anarchy would (under most constructions) uphold the individual's right to be a judge in his own cause without granting him immunity for making an erroneous judgment. Every theory of anarchy which I have seen, however, also recognizes that making every man a judge of his own cause creates such a threat of error and retaliation that most will seek public legitimacy through some adjudication generally accepted as reliable. In addition, the possibility of error raises not just a utilitarian justification for public legitimacy, but also a moral element: it is not just dangerous, but immoral to take the life, liberty and property of the innocent. The power to judge is not license to judge carelessly.
Granting the government the power of summary execution adds the additional likelihood that the conduct of the executioner will be attributed to the governed by those threatened with summary execution, or by the heirs of those summarily executed. If a power which endangers innocents both foreign and domestic is to be employed, the government should at a minimum support its claim by “let[ting] Facts be submitted to a candid world.” No facts, of course, have been forthcoming.
Even President Bush moderated Mr. Dempsey’s “summary execution” approach by providing at least the show of a military tribunal before execution. (Another Cato writer later objected to the domestic use of military tribunals.)
Patrick J. Michaels then claimed that our allies should drop their Kyoto demands because (of all reasons) it hampers the government's ability to pollute during wartime. He then assured our green allies that it will be OK, since the war will leave the world with even bigger governments, which they can use to make life even worse than under Kyoto (he really says this!).
David Boaz then returned to the fray, arguing that all true libertarians must support the war. He supported, among other questionable objectives, the removal of the Taliban from power, now accomplished. Three Historical “Catos” The inspiration for the Institute's name is the pen name adopted by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who wrote the libertarian Cato Letters in the early 1720s. Trenchard and Gordon were in turn inspired by the Roman statesman Cato the Younger and his opposition to the same evils which they saw in the administration of Robert Walpole: bribery and corruption. Colonial American political thought was strongly inspired by the Cato Letters, to the point that Americans considered them “the most authoritative statement of the nature of political liberty.” Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 36 (1992).
Since 9-11, however, the Cato Institute has assumed the position of another historical Cato: Cato the Elder, also known as Cato the Censor. Cato the Elder had developed a passionate hatred for Carthage (there was apparently much to detest), Rome's enemy in two prior wars. For the last seven or eight years of his life, Cato the Elder ended every speech with the words: Delenda est Carthago (“Carthage must be destroyed”). Cato the Elder was posthumously rewarded for his persistence by the Third Punic War, in which Rome destroyed Carthage and spread salt over the ruins. Now that today's Rome is completing the destruction of today's Carthage, let it likewise be remembered that this is Cato's war.
December 11, 2001
