This was posted today to the Libertarian Alliance Forum by Nigel Meek.
“Although generally always pro-War – I accept the case that Islamic Jihadists and bandit states such as Iraq and North Korea might ultimately have to be confronted and put down by relatively large, well-equipped armed forces, and it’s one of the reasons that *in practice* I’m a minarchist rather than an anarchist – like any libertarian with a right to be called by that name I’ve nevertheless always been somewhat hesitant about fully committing my meagre support to the whole thing. Whether it’s the prospect civilian casualties, of increased taxation to pay for it all, or a lasting diminution in domestic civil liberties – in short, a growth of the State’s reach and power – it is not good news for our way of thinking.
And yet the marches in London and elsewhere yesterday have as near as it’s possible so to do obliged me now to side with Bush and Blair effectively unequivocally. I peeked at the TV screen every now and then on Saturday – and thanks, too, to Perry de Havilland and David Carr for their reporting on the event in Samizdata -and even if one knew absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein, his family, his supporters, the Ba’athist regime, and the actions of all of the forces under their control nationally and internationally over a great many years, simply looking at those who attended ought to be enough to make any sane person opt for Bush and Blair and to support a military invasion of Iraq, not just in the absence of any formal support from the UN but in complete indifference to what the UN says.
For what did we see on Saturday in London and elsewhere? Warmed-over Cold War moral equivalencers and Communist fellow-travellers; various latter-day Marxoid sectarians; geriatric Aldermaston veterans and other one-sided nuclear
disarmers; ‘smash Anglo-Saxon civilisation’ multiculturalists; assorted celebrity egotists; outright pro-Saddamites; anti-globalisation nihilists; re-invigorated public-sector trades unionists; UN-supporting single-world-governancers; full-time protesters-without-a-cause; liars and fantasists; pan-Arab socialists; Green nature worshippers; anti-Semites; ‘nice’ middle-class people who are “worried about their children’s future” and who voted for the Greens in the 1980s and latterly and ironically for Blair and New Labour; insolent purveyors of an alien and wicked Islamic creed; immigrant welfare-spongers; those who simply think that evil is good and vice-versa; and Lord alone knows who else. Saddest of all – however small in number -capitalist-libertarians whose hatred of Statism is so great that they would apparently look with more favour upon a ‘private’ mugger the a State-employed policeman coming to the victim’s aid.In short: a march-past of Those Who Are Wrong. This is not a black and white issue. No libertarian could think so. But I believe that it’s fair to say that it’s a black and rather-grimy-off-white-grey issue. The very real faults of Bush
and Blair personally, their political views overall, the parties that they lead, and the only semi-free countries that they run simply must not blind us to the demonstrable truths not only of the nature of Saddam Hussain et al but that those who oppose them here in the UK and elsewhere are (at best) mistaken and (at worst) a fairly representative cross-section of every wicked creed to have recently assailed the world, certainly since the end of the Second World War.What we witnessed was a March for Evil.”
I think that was worth re-printing.
Could anyone have put the responsible libertarian position any better? Mr. Meek has a pint and a whisky waiting for him the next time I’m in Albion.
Ditto. Thanks for reposting that, David.
I think the war is justified. That said, –
The fact that a viewpoint (being anti-war) is supported by immoral characters does not implicate that viewpoint per se. This post does not seem like a very good argument for or against the war itself but more an attack upon the marchers.
No amount of stupid/crazy/evil people protesting against (or for) the war can make the war any more (or less) of a good idea.
Deciding that something is right (or wrong) just because rotten people oppose (or support) it is not rational.
No amount of crazy/stupid/evil people marching against (or for) the war will make the war any more (or less) of a good idea.
Supporting (or opposing) an idea just because crazy people oppose (or support) it isn’t rational.
I disagree. If one is undecided about some issue, the character and agenda of individuals taking one side or another is a perfectly valid and important piece of data. It allows one to delve into possible motivations of those on the two sides, which might very well shed new light on the issue.
Ed
(random point: oops I said implicate instead of imply; oh well)
Ed, that is true. However, that did not seem to be the nature of the argument that Carr was making. Or, if it was, it wasn’t explicit, which it should have been in this case of questionable logic. However, the motivations of the two sides, although relevant, should never be a deciding factor. The most important argument for or against a position is an argument. Other things may stand in for a while, but in the end, one must decide which position is most logical.
Malex–
The motivations of the two sides can be very relevant if it appears that one of them isn’t interested in truth. This is why criminal trials have such strict standards of evidence. It’s not sufficient (under US law, at least) for a defendant to say “The one-armed man did it; I saw him.”
However, in most situations, a statement by one party that “I know this happened because I was there and I saw it” can go unchallenged. That’s because most arguentation is based on trust and civility. We assume, for the sake of sanity, that most people are fairly truthful unless they have some compelling reason to lie. The alternative is a Cartesian paranoia in which we refuse to believe in Africa because we’ve only read about it in books and heard of it from other people.
If the ideological commitments of the anti-war protesters have become more important to them than truth, then we should be more meticulous than usual in fact-checking their arguments.
Ho do you find the LA BBS? I know I registered there at one time. But I was just at their site and could find nothing.
In any event this post represents a very astute obsevation of the self-discrediting nature of the appeaseniks. I’ve been over at Liberty Forum jousting with the largely anti-war crowd over there and they are exactly like the self-proclaimed libertarian factions in the anti-war protests. Not only are they defaced by the plethora of tin-foil hat loonies among them, but even the more rational of them can’t seem to form a coherent doctrine of why the war is a bad thing. They each have their own cache of theories; many of them contradicting those in the cache of their compatriots.
How do you find the LA BBS? I know I registered there at one time. But I was just at their site and could find nothing.
In any event this post represents a very astute obsevation of the self-discrediting nature of the appeaseniks. I’ve been over at Liberty Forum jousting with the largely anti-war crowd over there and they are exactly like the self-proclaimed libertarian factions in the anti-war protests. Not only are they defaced by the plethora of tin-foil hat loonies among them, but even the more rational of them can’t seem to form a coherent doctrine of why the war is a bad thing. They each have their own cache of theories; many of them contradicting those in the cache of their compatriots.
oh yes, they were all loonies. that’s right.
Don’t bother engaging with your opposition; just sit there & associate them with discredited or just plain wrong ideas. That’ll lead to a healthy debate. That’s the way intelligent libertarians proceed.
Sometimes the level of complacency & self-satisfiedness on this site is astounding. Just because the tired old marxists and the radgy islamists are the ones who get to the front & talk to the cameras, it doesn’t mean they represented the majority. The majority of people I saw looked fairly embarrassed at the simplistic rhetoric, & unwilling to join in the cliched chants. They were just there because they felt their government wasn’t listening to their concerns. And still isn’t.
You may disagree with the protesters, but this need you have to put them in the ‘idiots’ box reflects more on yourselves than them.
(note: personally, i’m not opposed to war under any circumstances; i’m just very uneasy about the unilateral approach we’re supporting the US in now)
I too have some concerns about the increasing strident tone of this otherwise superb site.
I have every sympathy with those on Samizdata who support the forthcoming war. The thought of Tony Benn telling an Iraqi women why it is wrong for her people to be freed from tyranny is skin-crawlingly repellent. And as for the marchers yesterday, well if they against the war that is almost reason enough for me to be for it.
Almost reason enough, but not quite. In the final analysis, I still believe (and I say this with all respect to those who disagree), that the pro-war libertarians are wrong. I’m not talking about those who would justify the war on the grounds of pre-emptive self defence. I disagree with them but the debate between us is not a debate of principle, merely one as to the weight of the evidence. Rather, I am troubled by the argument that the war is justified on the grounds that it will bring liberty to millions of Iraqi’s.
Let me say clearly that I fully endorse the goal of bringing liberty to Iraq and I would willingly contribute some of my own money to pay for a military effort to bring about that end.
But others would not. And therein lies the contradiction for libertarians. How can we justify using force (viz tax revenues) to make others pay for a war that they oppose? If the U.S. or U.K. governments were to conscript people to fight to free Iraq, I am sure we would be loud in our condemnation. Yet taxation is at only one remove from conscription. Whether we like it or not, millions of people in the U.S. and the U.K. disagree with the war. We may disagree with them, but how can we as libertarians justify forcing them to pay for it? The implications are obvious and run counter to everything that libertarians stand for.
Two counter-arguments have been put forward to this viewpoint.
One is Nigel Meek’s argument that the situation is analogous to the enforcement of the criminal law by the State. However, minarchist theory does not usually extend to the enforcement of law and order by the State beyond its borders.
The second argument is Perry’s, viz that private means are unavailable because the State has banned them (we aren’t allowed to club together and buy bombs) and thus there is no alternative but to support the State on this issue. This is a powerful argument, but is it right? Many things are banned by the State, but the libertarian response is not usually to demand that the State fills the gap, but to demand that the State lifts the ban (even if the goal is a long-term one).
David
a/b the relevancy of the personal character of the protesters –
I think we agree and haven’t admitted it. I think that it’s an element to consider when making one’s decision (through the concerns noted by others above), but don’t think that it in itself should be enough to convince anyone.
A_t,
How many countries does it take for a unilateralist approach? I guess the Samizdata people are getting a little snippy because you can have eight European leaders sign a letter of support for the US position one day, and ten leaders the next, but the anti-war protestors still rant on about the ‘unilateral US’. I would say that making fun of the opposition is about the only thing that either side can do now–there will never be enough proof and never enough countries on board to satisfy broad sections of the left. Also, are you telling me that you believe Saddam will comply if given more time?
Of course, when we condemn those who march against the war as “Marching for evil” we must also condemn libertarians in the march as “Marching for evil.” And what about those who write against the war? Is Lew Rockwell, for instance, “writing for evil.” Must we reject these people as “real” libertarians for opposing the war in Iraq.
Likewise, the example is similar to that of a century and a half ago when Lord Palmerston argued that anybody who was interested in liberty must surely support British intervention over the invasion of Hungary by Russia, just as surely they would support the British intervention in Spain that gave us the name “Liberals” (from “Liberales”)? Richard Cobden’s reply was a clear and eloquent “No,” he said that the British government had no right to forcibly intervene in foreign affairs and that the cause of liberty and peace would be furthered if governments took it upon themselves to restrain their activities by this principle of non-intervention.
Cobden and Bright, according to this view, asserted that our government has no right to be crusading around the world, even if it is defense of liberty. So surely Cobden and Bright and much of the Manchester school should be excommunicated from libertarian history. How could they support such a view as not defending liberty?
Well, really its a view thats straight out of Nozick. Its about viewing rights, liberty included, as side-constraints, not ends. When ever I hear someone who says “I support the war” I wonder about such a person. I mean, does this person really believe that there will be no civilian casualties? Generally not – such people accept that there will be “collateral damage.” So surely someone who goes around saying “I support the war in Iraq” is going around saying “I supprt killing babies”! We usually treat such people as odd in the extreme, but when it comes to war thats fine?
The blairist argument is that the deaths that collateral damage will in volve are unfortunate, but in the end justified, since the war will end up saving net lives (how he knows this, we can’t possibly tell). Hence Blair says that a view violations of the right to life are justified since it will lead to fewer violations of the same right in the future. Likewise, when countered with the view that killing innocent people is hardly liberating them, “pro-war libertarians” say that this loss of liberty is justified since it is an inevitable part of a process that will bring greater and wider liberty to many more people in the future. Hence, it is OK to violate the right of liberty a little if doing so ensures greater liberty and fewer violations of it for a greater number.
This view is one that Nozick labeled as “Utilitarianism of rights.” He contrasted it to one that he called “rights as side constraints”. In this view rights serve to define the boundaries within which we may rightfully act. Whereas “utilitarianism of rights” sees rights as ends for our actions, the side constraint view sees rights as parameters for our actions – we can pursue certain ends, but only within the boundaries set by these rights.
The implication of this view is the same as that of Cobden: In some circumstances it is wrong to do something even if that something means defending or securing the life and liberty of others. So why should we favour such a view? Nozick’s answer was that this view of rights reflects the kantian view that we should not be treated as means to ends but as ends in ourselves.
This is an intuitively attractive view. For instance, we would all be shocked and appalled if the government anounced that the technology to transplant eyes had been developed and so it was imposing an eye tax on those with 20 20 vision in order to redistribute eyes to blind people. Those blind people would benefit to a greater degree than those taxed would lose, a fairer and more egalitarian distribution of eyes would result, but we would still be appalled: We want voluntarily donate our eyes if we want, but to steal our eyes, to forcibly take them from us in order to accomplish any end, no matter how just or good, is intuitively wrong.
Pro-war libertarians, in supporting the “utilitarianism of rights” argument, just as Tony Blair justifies his actions, reject the view that rights are side constraints and accept that they are ends. They thereby reject the view that people are ends and believe that people should be used as means, provided they are the right means, whether these people like it or not. One wonders where such libertarians draw the line? Slavery? Taxation. They remind me of those conservatives in the US during the ’60s against whom libertarianism found its resurgence, who argued for a “temporary suspension of civil liberties in order to crush the communist threat.” We didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them now.
And finally, in accusing those who support the war of supporting baby killing I explicitly reject the doctrine of double effect. If someone knows the consequences of an course of action the choose to take, and yet take it anyway, even if some of those consequences are unjust, they thereby choose to do something unjust.