Eminent blogger Alex Knapp of Heretical Ideas thinks beyond the impending war against Iraq
As you can tell by the title of this post, this discussion isn’t about whether or not it’s ‘properly libertarian’ for the U.S. to wage war against Iraq. I’m going to assume that as a given. The question that has been running around in my mind is this: what is the libertarian case for regime change? Or, to be more specific, there’s a clear libertarian case for toppling a government that proves itself to be a danger. I don’t think any libertarian thinks that, once World War II started, the only goal of the Allies was to contain Germany within its borders. Clearly, Hitler and the Nazis posed a danger, and it would have been suicide for the world to simply let them rebuild again. However, what about the aftermath? Is there a libertarian case for the Marshall Plan, rebuilding the nations of the former Axis powers, etc.? This is a particularly vital point of discussion when it comes to Iraq.
The Libertarian case for Marshall Plans
First, let’s look at a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Iraq. At first glance, it looks like the libertarian case is easy: ‘we’re against it.’ After all, libertarian theory relies heavily on the idea that neither state-supported safety nets nor foreign humanitarian aid are moral or effective. Yet a Marshall Plan would seem to combine qualities of both. However, there are several factors that differentiate the rebuilding of a country after a war from the twin devils of welfare and foreign aid. The first primary difference is that a Marshall Plan style rebuilding is partially compensatory in nature. War is, by its very nature, destructive. And often prime targets during wartime aren’t necessarily military–roads, bridges, factories, etc. Once war is over, it’s arguable that a nation should “clean up the mess it made”, particularly as in regards to civilian infrastructure. This is certainly fitting with traditional libertarian ideas of compensation for damage caused to private property by government.
The second primary difference is that a Marshall Plan is usually a one-time arrangement. Unlike foreign aid or welfare entitlements, this type of payments goes to a specific cause aimed at a specific outcome. Therefore, the dependency relationship that develops in the former two cases doesn’t happen in a Marshall Plan.
The third primary difference is that Marshall Plan style re-buildings are partially military in nature. History shows that an utterly defeated populace is likely to develop resentment against the victorious power if it is left in a substantially weakened position. This is precisely what happened with Germany after World War I. By contrast, the rebuilt former Axis nations became allies of the nations which defeated them. This can also be seen in Lincoln’s post-civil war policy of reconciliation with the South. By accepting them back into the union and providing money to rebuilt (albeit not as much as should have happened), Lincoln probably prevented a resurgence of hostilities by the Southern states. As the Buddhist saying goes, “The best way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend.” In a similar way, a Marshall Plan style rebuilding can be seen as part of the legitimate defense apparatus of government, because it helps to prevent a resurgence of hostilities by previously defeated enemies.
Is there a libertarian case for the U.S. determining the post-Ba’ath regime?
Perhaps the primary objection to the United States and her allies determining what sort of government post-Hussein Iraq should have is that the Iraqi people should have the right to determine their own government. Writing in The National Review, Amitai Etzioni, certainly no libertarian, makes this argument. Although he mostly makes his case on utilitarian grounds, he does make the point that the Iraqis have the right to determine their own government, whether it be a Green-dominated parliamentary system or a free-market utopia.
Certainly there is strong support for self-government in the libertarian philosophy. However, there’s enormous skepticism for the workings of democracy, as well. Majorities do not always protect individual rights, and many parliamentary systems move in the direction of state control, particularly when not checked by judiciary or executive branches. Moreover, in the post-war chaos that will almost certainly ensue after Hussein’s fall, who is to say that the Iraqi people will have the ability to determine their own government?
That being said, the question still remains: even if there is no guarantee that an Iraqi-created post-Ba’ath regime is the ‘will of the Iraqi people’, what gives the United States and her allies the right to determine such a government? My argument would be that the United States has the right, first of all, as compensation for destroying the last government. Secondly, it has the right to determine the next government as a means of security–that is, preventing a government in which enemies of the United States can rise to power. However, both of these arguments are qualified. The United States would have no right, for instance, to create a dictatorship in Iraq. This is because no dictatorship is legitimate, nor should it be recognized as such by free nations. Although the United States has the right to create a new government for Iraq, it also has an obligation to create a legitimate government. That is, one in which the ‘consent of the governed’ can manifest itself peacefully. This would include, by extension, one that prevents censorship, protects the rights of the individual, and has some measure of accountability, probably through democratic means.
Issues of post-war rebuilding and regime change are tricky ones for libertarians. However, I do think that libertarian cases can be made for both the forced creation of legitimate governments and for Marshall plan style rebuilding in a post-war setting. That being said, my comments are certainly open for discussion and I think that this issue is one that the libertarian community at large should be grappling with.
Alex Knapp
1. Supporting Marshal plan aid on the ground that it is compensation for private property damaged in war is an implausible argument because: a. this kind of aid is given to governments and not to private parties that sustained damage; and b. damages should be paid by the party that caused them – in this case by the Iraqi aggresor regime, not by the party (US) that corrected the wrongs caused by that regime.
2. Aid as a means to avert a future conflict sounds like buying off the thugs, a dubious procedure – that may actually encourage future thugs.
3. Social engineering is not an option – creating a regime in Iraq according to some ideal blueprint is impossible. Creation of a nice regime in Iraq should not be the aim or justification for this war. I buy Amitai Etzioni’s argument that the only thing that needs to be done in Iraq after the war is to ensure that the new regime does not rearm.
I’m for the regime change and building a proper country in Iraq. This post and the “world is a messy place” post below remind me that I’ve never been much of a “proper libertarian.” I guess I’m more of a “country-boy with a joint in one hand and a gun in the other” kind of libertarian.
VOW is a project for Victory Over Want through direct national and international public investment, coordinated broadly in the way of the Marshall Plan and OEEC. VOW proposes convening a range of Commissions leading to a World Conference which will establish a continuing program through the Agency for Victory Over Want at all Levels (AVOWAL). VOW aims to reach the goal of Freedom from Want “everywhere in the world” set by President Roosevelt in 1941.
I should add that , although VOW will be a huge step in itself, it will, even so, be – desirably – only a first step towards further and deeper cooperation on a worldwide basis. That cooperation would lead gradually towards a pragmatic form of world government or some kind of de facto world federation.
Yes, we can secure freedom from want. Of that I have no doubt. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have the management capacities if we choose to put them to this purpose. What we lack is the political will to free the world from want.
Within what time scale?
In the early 1960s, President Kennedy undertook to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth within the decade. The goal seemed impossible. But in July 1969, men did in fact land on the moon and were brought back safely to earth. The impossible was achieved. If we had the same will to free the world from want in this present decade, it would be much easier than landing a man on the moon – even now.
In the United States – the richest and most powerful country on earth – there are right at this moment millions of people living in poverty, homeless, sick and without medical insurance – 40 million of them – millions not educated to their potential, people living each day without clean water. Why is this? Is it because the United States lacks the resources, the skills, the funds? Not at all. It is because the political will isn’t there. What we need is another President Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John Fitzgerald Kennedy and, by 2010, we could banish want from the face of the earth.
At the same time, we could banish many of the hatreds, much of the envy, a good deal of the suffering that leads to conflict, including terrorism. That conflict could cause humanity to follow the dinosaurs
into extinction and perhaps end all life on earth. Failing such
leadership, it is for us to pursue a democratic initiative which will provide the will and vision that governments and international agencies lack.
We hope that then they will say to us, carrying the banner of
direct democracy, “We are their leaders. We must follow them.”
Incidentally, I have a novel coming out soon, called “Uncle Rupert: The Man Who Threw Money Over Back Fences.” It tells the story of a man who is disillusioned with the performance of our “governors” and who launches his own initiative for people to apply their own energies and goodwill to improve the lives of many of their fellows.
I have just read the VOW site and after wading through a storm of convoluted pixels, as far as I can make out, VOW advocates the democratic politicisation of all economic decisions. To say the site is not succinct in expressing exactly what its ideological pitch is would be putting it mildly, its literary style is laughably overblown, but in essence it is just a reworking of the old ‘democratic socialism’ Transnational Progressive schtick but with American iconography (quotes FDR and Clinton) and a transnational vision along the lines of the old Marxist Internationals.
I particularly loved the bit which says:
Yes, we can secure freedom from want. Of that I have no doubt. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have the management capacities if we choose to put them to this purpose. What we lack is the political will to free the world from want
We have the resources? We? Who is we? I am NOT your supporter. I take it that is also my resources you are talking about. By what right to you claim to reallocate my resources? Why should having some future ‘democratic’ mandate give you that right? It is just the same old Marxist crap. I risked my capital to accumulate my resources, not you and not the people who you might convince to vote for VOW.
VOW is just repackaged advocacy for French style (á la Lionel Jospin) statist ‘managed trade’. The vast majority of the world’s economic problems are caused by statist distortions of trade and what VOW wants to do is in no way any different. It is just more Tranzi political (i.e. force based) voodoo economics. There is not a single new idea on the VOW site that I could see. Complete and utter bullshit that bares no relation to reality.
Although I agree with the thrust of Alex Knapp’s arguments, as a summary of the possibilities of future policy to a post-Ba’athist Iraq, there seems to be no libertarian foundation to supporting military and state intervention in other countries.
Moreover, the sentence: “However, I do think that libertarian cases can be made for both the forced creation of legitimate governments…” is very controversial. If a government is legitimate, it is recognised as such by the people who are governed by it. If its creation is forced on a nation by an outsider, its legitimacy will be questioned and tainted. (For an example, see Bosnia). There is no libertarian case for forcing a group to accept a system of government on the grounds that it meets principles of acceptability and legitimacy as set out by an external agency. Does this not sound similar to the arguments that transnationalists utilise to justify their support for international law?
Intervention in Iraq is justified on the grounds of security alone. Any regime-building that ensues will be placed within the structures of liberal democracy, expanding liberty within the region. The expansion of liberty is sufficient cause to allow support without invoking the tangled knots of libertarian reasoning to justify state actions.
“no libertarian foundation to supporting military and state intervention in other countries” ??
Toppling legitimate regimes – i.e. regimes which govern by the consent of the governed and are relatively free and respectfull of individual rights – this is of course a no-no.
But if the regime is tyrannical and corrupt, if it’s people suffer terribly under it and would dearly love to see it toppled, but are unable to do it – then toppling that regime from the outside is almost a moral imperative.
The question that remains open is: why would an outside power want to invest it’s money and the lives of it’s soldiers in a regime change military campaign in another country ? To that the answer is: “on the grounds of security alone”.
To which I reply, yes, there are good reasons for intervention, including security. But these are not libertarian in origin.
You appear to be invoking classical liberal ideas, which can be traced back to Viscount Castlereagh or George Canning, that intervention is justified if the regime is illiberal and its removal coincides with your state’s interests.
If you have moved towards these arguments, then, perhaps, you should call yourself a “Lord Liverpool liberal” [although, strictly speaking, he was the Earl of Liverpool].
“intervention is justified if the regime is illiberal and its removal coincides with your state’s interests”
I don’t know what “your state’s interests” means in the above sentence – it is not defined. My definition is:
Country A should not embark on a military expedition in country B to secure some economic advantage – like oil. It is not the role of government to enrich it’s citizens. Economic issues should be resolved by free trade between individuals, not by state force.
On the other hand – if country B threatenes the lives of people in country A it is the duty of government A to protect it’s people, and invade country B if that is neccessary to remove the threat.
Of course, we suppose the regime in B is illiberal, otherwise there would be no threat.
Is this libertarian enough ?
Actually, the idea that it’s okay to topple illiberal states was placed in a libertarian context in the writings of Ayn Rand. (Oh sure, she didn’t call herself a libertarian, but who are we kidding?)