U.S. Military Intervention Abroad; the Civil War

—–Original Message—–
From: NB
Sent: Sun 11/20/2016 2:41 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: a question regarding “other defense”
Dr. Block-
I hope my email finds you well.
My question is this:
What is your opinion on the application of “other defense” as a principle when it comes to statist/minarchist intervention in reference to things such as WW2, the Civil War, the Iraq occupation of Kuwait, etc.? Is there a “sliding scale” of NAP violations to take into consideration? (I’m reminded of your argument that a Nazi guard purposely killing less prisoners is a “good guy”, but still responsible or those he killed) Thanks for all you do- NB

Dear NB: From the anarcho-capitalist point of view that I embrace, the government should not exist in the first place. Since that is the case, your questions are easily answered. The government should not have engaged in any of those wars. It should not even collect garbage, nor deliver the mail. Now, let us consider your questions from the perspective of the libertarian limited government advocate (libertarian minachism); this is a position I respect, but do not accept. Here, the sole function of the state is to protect its citizens and their property rights. For that purpose, people such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick would support armies to keep foreign enemies of our freedom at bay, police to keep local hooligans from violating our rights, and courts to determine guilt and innocence. Now, to answer your specific questions. 1. WW2, 2. the Civil War, 3. the Iraq occupation of Kuwait.

1. WW2. The U.S. should never entered into WW1. If it had not done so, WW1 would have petered out, since the two sides had roughly the same amount of military might, resources, etc. Instead, the U.S. entered on the side of England, since our ruling classes had more bonds in that country than in Germany. As a result, the Allies beat the Axis countries. Then came the evil Treaty of Versailles, which lead to the hyper-inflation of 1923, which lead to Hitler. Interesting question: even given this past history, should the US have entered WW2? No. Our government should have remained neutral, and let two of the most evil regimes ever to have existed fight it out: the Nazis and the Communists. Remember, the role of the government under minarchism is to protect US citizens in its territory. None of them were in any danger from either the Nazis or the Communists. But what about Japan and Pearl Harbor? The US started that war with a blockade of the Japanese. Roosevelt ran on a peace platform, but wanted war. He had the Japanese codes, and could have warned the US soldiers in Hawaii, but wanted an excuse for war.

2. The Civil War. There were civil wars in Spain in 1936 and in Russia in 1917. There, each of two parties wanted to rule the entire country. There was no civil war in the US in 1861. It was not the case that there were then two parties each of which wanted to rule the entire country. Rather, this held true for the north, under the evil Lincoln, but the south only wanted to secede from the north. This war was NOT fought over slavery. BOTH sides at the time held slaves. For more on this, see the many publications of Tom DiLorenzo, my mentor on these issues.

3. The Iraq occupation of Kuwait. The US should have remained strictly neutral on this issue. Saddam Hussain, was not a libertarian. He was a local strongman, who kept order. The US knocked him over, and this lead to the creation of something much worse, ISIL. No US citizens located in the US, or US residents, were in danger from the Iraq occupation of Kuwait.

There is no “sliding scale.” Matters are very clear. US militarism abroad is not justified, even from the perspective of limited government libertarianism; e.g., monarchism. The only role of the US military should be one of defense.

The Best of Walter E. Block