I seem to be changing my mind a lot. But perhaps I’m becoming more libertarian by the day. I’ve decided the US was wrong to go into Iraq. But that doesn’t really help me, sitting here in Australia. That’s primarily an issue for US taxpayers as they will have to deal with most of the hatred generated by American interventionism.
What I am interested in is separating the question of whether Iraq was right from the American-Australian alliance as encapsulated in the ANZUS treaty. Article 4 of that treaty was invoked by John Howard.
My general conclusion is that the alliance is too important for a non-nuclear state like Australia to take a principled stance on Iraq. And the price Australia has paid (either in lives or dollars) has been worth it for this reason. I’m not saying something new of course. Only stressing the point that we can’t afford to be openly ‘anti-American’ – like France – given our limited military capacity.
There is one way Australia could finally stop attaching itself to a benovolent power (first Britain, now the US). Australia could acquire nuclear weapons, as was considered during the 1960s, as a means of becoming more independent in foreign policy.
Furthermore, Australia could make it a priority to extract a NATO style security agreement (where an attack on one is an attack on all) from a major Asian power as well as the US. Unilateral dismantling of economic trade barriers is just the ticket to do this – Australia can act like its ‘conceding’ something because politicians don’t understand economics, when really Australians benefit doubly: once through a reciprocal security agreement, and once through cheaper goods and services of a higher quality.
I welcome the rise of India and China as potential superpowers. The US wields little influence over that region, maybe because Asian countries have a healthy disrespect for what the US thinks. And some have the WMDs to back them up in case US arrogance gets out of hand…which MAD ensures it won’t.
After China invaded India in 1962, the Indian government moved towards acquiring nuclear weapons and significantly increased defence spending, making sure it would never be caught short in defending its national borders. This is good. I like India. And I like that it stays out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and acts as a stabilising force without having to toe the US line like Australia.
Now I’m not saying Australia should go that far. Only that if it doesn’t, we should be prepared to abandon principle on issues such as Iraq. Presumably US protection allows Australian defence spending to be lower than it would otherwise be. Whether this is more libertarian in the long run depends on balancing the negative effects of US global interventionism (they have troops stationed in nearly 130 countries) with Australia’s ability to maintain a conservative defence/anti-terrorism budget as a consequence of such interventionism.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
Help! I’ve been reading a bunch of stuff for a politics paper on the Iraq war I’ve got to write. I remember reading a quote where it was said (from memory): ‘[something something something]… and small nations are like prostitutes to bigger nations.’
Unfortunately I can’t find the article where I got the quote from and googling ‘prostitute’ wasn’t very successful at all. If anyone knows who this quote is by I’d very much appreciate it, as in one sense it sums up our historical relationship with the US (of course, there are counterexamples).
That’s a very nice argument for 5% of the GDP to spent on Defence…
Sorry, Sukrit, I don’t know the quote.
On general libertarian principles, we should either be not allied to anyone, or be at peace with every other country. This need not be as farcical as it sounds. Costa Rica deliberately decided to have no standing army, and is still neutral to this day. It can be done! Self-defence pacts are the only ethical alliances.
Foster-Dulles made the ANZUS Treaty with the purpose of stopping Australia ‘doing a curtin’ as it did in 1942. It was intended to provide Australia blue water security while it still left its troops in the Middle East if a world war broke out between the west and the soviets. Australia has built the ANZUS Treaty into almost mythical proportions.
There are a couple of realities, first we are a regional power, and the only nation with projection power and sustainable tempo to crush the ADF is the US. China has not the projection to get to us, nor does Russia. For this reason we can have an independent foreign policy that isn’t subservient to the current hyperpower.
The policy the Howard has used is the “Great and Powerful Friends” [GAPF] doctrine of foreign policy. It has been around since Billy Hughes kicked it off at Versailles. Iraq is a good example of the policy being followed blindly. Most of the other supposed benefits from it are also myth and don’t survive empirical scrutiny. For instance that we got economic benefits from the US for going into Iraq (the FTA). However several nations who opposed or did not contribute to Iraq also got FTAs. The bilateral FTAs are current political fashion, not a result of the GAPF.
About the only argument for Iraq is that Australia had a moral imperative to do so, however, that requires Australia having a moral imperative to ignore the nation-state structure of international relations and to be aggressors and invaders. Something which is harder to will away. Arguing that we have to ignore the morality of nation-state legalities and invading a sovereign country (no matter how repugnant their regime) in order to maintain a security relationship with a hyper-power puts the whole process on dubious moral grounds. Which is why I think we are struggling with what is a moral deficit in this.
Sukrit, I played around and came up with the following from which you may recognise something to jog the memory:-
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=relationships+between+large+and+small+nations&btnG=Search&meta=
I welcome the rise of India and China as potential superpowers.
How on earth can you make this statement? China is a fascist regime to all intents and purposes and makes noises to a democratic state threatening it with attack if it doesn’t become part of China. The regime is friendly with North Korea and deals with any dictator it feels helps its position and bugger the consequences. That’s a crazy statement to make.
We still don’t know enough about how India will deal with things and it’s too early to tell.
Enter Nato? Are you joking? Nato is the US in military terms. Would you trust Italy or Turkey to come to our aid? Would you think an aggressor would believe they could or would. That’s nonsense.
——————
The US wields little influence over that region, maybe because Asian countries have a healthy disrespect for what the US thinks.
The US can carry as much influence as it likes because it is the largest naval power in the world and able to project frightening firepower with it 12 carrier battle groups.
———————-
And some have the WMDs to back them up in case US arrogance gets out of hand…which MAD ensures it won’t.
Dude. You’re living in Australia. If it came to an out nuke attack, do you thing we would ever support India or China against the US if they were the other side .Keep dreaming.
If you’re anti-American please say so.
You need to explain exactly why you want to see both India and China as military powers. Economic powers is fine, but military powers is another thing altogether. Am I noting a little anti-western sentiment coming from you all cloaked up?
get my other comment out of moderation please.
Nic
Don’t be daft. There is nothing in libertarian principles that tell us we should be peaceniks and be non-allied. That’s just nonsense talk.
In certain respects alliances and maintaining a strong effective deterrent type of defense capability is what would also ensure the peace. Peace does come through strength.
Costa Rica is doing a mini version of New Zealand while we’re living off US largesse when it comes to defense. We are better off than the US is. Costa Rica knows it doesn’t have to worry to much because the 800 pound gorilla is in it’s north and takes a particular interest in the western hemisphere.
Truth be told the US doesn’t really need us in the strict sense of the word as we don’t necessarily offer any huge strategic advantage to them.
Military spending from a libertarian perspective should be considered a defensive posture. It doesn’t mean we need to be peaceniks and take it up the backside if China comes calling. No problem with the Chinese people as such. But I wouldn’t trust that regime from a second in terms of its ruthlessness.
I get the feeling there are far too many lefty peaceniks posing as libertarians and not really understanding what the concept means.
Anyone who comes a calling without an invite should know they would end up with a friggen bullet in the head if the tried something- writ large. We need to also demonstrate we have the capability to make that happen.
Sukrit
India is a potential ally but only when looked at in terms to a shared alliance that must have the US and Japan as part of the deal.
Sukrit — I don’t think you need nuclear weapons (or other types of WMDs for that matter that are far easier to create — such as biological ones), to be able to wield that threat. You just need a good science and technology sector. That’s surely one of the reasons Japan doesn’t have any.
JC — I think you are overly optimistic about the US. A lot of the world finds the foreign policy actions of the US far more aggressive than countries like China in recent history. In addition, if China wanted to take Taiwan, they could do it tommorow, but Taiwan is of more value like it is, as it is responsible for part of the development of part of the East Coast of China — notably Fujian provence (and the same is true of HK & Macao for Guangdong). Its probably also a good place to steal American weapons technology from.
The other thing you are overly optimistic about is the influence the US has in Asia. China could easily stuff the US up simply by selling a few hundred billion dollars of treasury notes, and that would be the end of the US dollar (who knows what it would fall too, and who knows what the consequences would be). Other rather simple methods would be to give North Korea and Iran a couple of nuclear weapons. Perhaps they could also give Pakistan some long distance missiles/space technology too.
Nicholas: I think New Zealand has a fairly independent foreign policy compared to Australia. India was neutral for a time (with its policy of ‘non-alignment’). Neutrality seems to work for Switzerland but didn’t work very well for India when China invaded them because they sheltered the Dalai Lama. But wouldn’t being more independent come at the price of Australia having to increase defense spending (because we’d basically need to be self-sufficient)? Wouldn’t that be less libertarian in the long run, even more than having to send a token effort to US adventures every now and then?
Cam: I don’t understand the projection capacity thing. How hard is it to fly by and drop a bomb on Darwin? Also, as Indonesia is a recent democracy, I would have thought they would be a concern for Australia.
JC: the Taiwan issue has been going on probably since 1949 and at least since 1978 (I know this because Murray Rothbard’s book published in this year mentions it). If China is going to do something, they’re taking a very long time to do it. I welcome China, but obviously less than India because they are an unknown.
Why is India an unknown? Just because certain countries created a fuss when it tried to go nuclear? It has historically had a responsible foreign policy, although it tended to court authoritarian regimes (eg. USSR). The US is far more irresponsible in its foreign policy in my view – it’s lost the plot on defence policy, which is to defend the mainland, not keep 100,000 troops stationed in Europe and subsidise everyone else’s defence.
I didn’t mention signing up to NATO – I said a NATO ‘style’ treaty with an Asian power in the region, probably India. It would help Australia to move beyond the US (while maintaining that important relationship).
Conrad: the ability to deliver nuclear warheads is the ultimate threat. Couldn’t it compensate for our inability to maintain a powerful defence force (or even a populous one)? This would be a big deterrent against states thinking of invading. China felt confident invading India in 1962 probably because it wasn’t nuclear then. There’s no way China, even with an authoritarian government not accountable to its people, would dare touch India now. Nuclear means instant elevation on the world stage, although I’m undecided on whether it’s something Australia should adopt.
Libertarians argue we shouldn’t make alliances that would draw us into wars that are none of our business. That’s what libertarians say. However, I’m not completely libertarian on foreign policy. But I recognise that there is a consistent libertarian view on the issue. Read the foreign policy section of the following two books:
Murray Rothbard, ‘For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto’, New York, University Press, 1978, pp.263-294.
Harry Browne, ‘Why Government Doesn’t Work’, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 138-158. (This guy is the former presidential candidate for LP and suggests targeted assasination and a nuclear defence shield system).
As an American who is quite unhappy about our foreign policy I think you guys in OZ have been taken for a ride. What benefit do you gain by being tied to US world politics?
Trinifar
But I am an American citizen ( not born) who is more than happy with having strong military ties to the US. They are the only nation on earth that has the ability to project power far from its shores. That’s worth a lot in terms of us not havig to spend larger amounts in defense.
Sukrit.
You’re suggestion that we tie ourselves closer to India or China is laughable. China’s regime is now a fascist while India could be closer but with a US and Japanese flavour attached.
US foreign policy in our region- north and south Asia- under the Bush Administration is been top notch. It has recongized it’s relationship with the democracies in the region needed to be strenghtened which is why the US has closer ties with India and Japan. This of course is going to be a wrok in progress.
I found it!
“The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.”
-Stanley Kubrick
June 5, 1963
JC, perhaps I should be more specific. I’m not happy with the huge portion of federal spending on defense in my country. Missile defense shield? Against whom and to what effect? Seems like a defense contractors dream instead of a worthwhile military program. In terms of the libertarian audience here it and many other programs are nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the average taxpayer to the defense industry without any tangible benefit to the taxpayer. Just as Eisenhower said nearly 50 years ago, “Beware the defense-industrial complex.”
Why should the USA be the world’s policeman? And what benefit do Americans gain? What benefit do Australians gain by operating in America’s shadow?
The defense industry has taken on a life of its own completely outside of the bounds of rationality. I’m paying for it but the only thing I can do is cast a vote in the next election.
Pingback: Club Troppo » Missing Link
” I’m not happy with the huge portion of federal spending on defense in my country. Missile defense shield? Against whom and to what effect…”
WHAT?
You mean to say your understanding of history is such that you don’t think its necessary to be able to stop countries with ICBM’s from intimidating us by threatening to nuke our major centres?
Dude.
I’m afraid you have to read some books. This Pax America can not be counted on to last forever. And it is not normal for big countries to treat smaller countries as equals.
“I found it!
“The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.”
-Stanley Kubrick
June 5, 1963”
Great quote. And absolutely relevant since once the Americans pull back in a flood of red ink then the normal depredation and appeasement between nations will resume.
Now this is an important issue. Will you just take the blocks off. We all have to act as if the success of efforts to build us up (so powerfully strong that we maintain our freedom and avoid catastrophic war) is dependent on our individual persuasive efforts alone.
And your efforts might include taking the blocks off my act.
Sukrit one thing. You are acting like an alliance is something that you can just pay the money and all will be fine.
We cannot expect an America that is drowning in red ink to look after us by sending its kids to die for us.
But we can look after ourselves. We just need the will to do so.
This post just does not develop any sort of reasoned case.
I’ve decided the US was wrong to go into Iraq.
Right, but on what grounds? Military, economic, geo-strategic, moral? How do you know you are right? And where does that leave us now, since history cannot be undone?
the alliance is too important for a non-nuclear state like Australia to take a principled stance on Iraq.
Which principle is that? The one that says you’ve changed your mind? Were you unprincipled when you previously supported US intervention in Iraq?
we can’t afford to be openly ‘anti-American’
You first need to answer the question, why would we want to be? The world is full of people who think anti-Americanism is an ideology, but that does not make it so. Disagreement with a particular American policy is a lot different from being anti-American.
There is one way Australia could finally stop attaching itself to a benovolent power (first Britain, now the US).
You offer no reason as to why it should, apart from the fact that you’ve changed your mind about Iraq.
Presumably US protection allows Australian defence spending to be lower than it would otherwise be. Whether this is more libertarian in the long run depends on balancing the negative effects of US global interventionism (they have troops stationed in nearly 130 countries) with Australia’s ability to maintain a conservative defence/anti-terrorism budget as a consequence of such interventionism.
And those negative effects are, what exactly? South Korea is protected from invasion by the lunatic north. Germany does not want the US to withdraw its troops there, even though they no longer have much strategic point since the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Every time Japan thinks about asking the US to pull out of Okinawa, it has a close look at China and changes its mind.
What is anti-libertarian about US troops being stationed in so many countries? Are they suppressing individual rights in those countries?
The issue of whether Australia should have an independent defence posture including the possession of nuclear weapons has little to do with Iraq. We could have nukes coming out our ears and still be a close ally and support the US in Iraq. The reason the US is a close ally is because it shares so many of our values – liberty, democracy, capitalism, the rule of law, etc etc. The reason we are more cautious about China and India is that they don’t.
“There are a couple of realities, first we are a regional power, and the only nation with projection power and sustainable tempo to crush the ADF is the US. China has not the projection to get to us, nor does Russia.”
China can nuke us with ICBM’s and it can nuke us with subs just off the coast.
What on earth are you talking about? Our pollies are so damn scared of China they won’t recognise Taiwan, they put up with Chinas many thousands of spies, they didn’t say squat when China kidnapped an Australian national, and they gave China a 25 year natural gas deal that amounted to a free gift.
Look I heard this sort of talk back when Bob Hawke was around. But it was actually true then.
Yes we can have an independent foreign policy. But we’ll need to get a lot tougher then what we are now.
And we’ll have to have a process going wherein we can speed up the rate of growth in our defense capability if we see that anyone can intimidate our politicians.
“In addition, if China wanted to take Taiwan, they could do it tommorow…”
Totally wrong. If China THOUGHT she could take Taiwan there is no question but she would do it tommorrow.
She hasn’t been in a position to. And so she hasn’t done it.
The Chinese instead content themselves with murdering innocent Fallun Gong member in order to rip out their fresh organs.
Sukrit, are you saying it was morally wrong for Australia to go into Iraq, or that we had the moral prerogative but the cost/benefit ratio makes it not worth it?
David… it’s not for the opponents of multi-billion dollar failed government programs to defend their libertarianism. It’s for the proponents of huge government programs to defend their statism.
Australia should retain a strong alliance with America. ANZUS did not require us to join the coalition to invade Iraq, so it would be perfectly consistent to remain an ally of America (like NZ and Canada) without joining the war.
A libertarian foreign policy is one where the government does not do anything violent/coercive unless it is likely to lead to a net benefit to the citizens. That’s the libertarian domestic policy too. Joining good alliances does give such benefits. A good alliance is one where our ally is able (and willing) to give substantial support to us exceeding the risk to us and/or our ally is very unlikely to be invaded unless we’re invaded first. For example, America and New Zealand.
I think we should keep our nuclear option open… but if we explore getting nuclear weapons now then we will encourage Indonesia to think the same. That would undermine our currently significant advantage in conventional weapons. At this stage there is only one country that could successfully invade and control Australia — and that is the United States. In terms of defensive capabilities in our region, only Taiwan puts us to shame… and to be fair they have more to worry about than us.
In terms of Asian allies… if we are to stay true to the “old Alliance” with the west (which we should absolutely do) then the logical candidates are Japan (who we’ve been talking to lately) and India (who is the logical counter-balance to China) and Taiwan (who needs all the friends they can get). While we should pursue strong economic ties with China I don’t think we should be fully comfortable of the idea of a China-run world.
Michael — when you talk about morals in politics what are you talking about? Unless we’re talking about consequences (ie costs and benefits) then the only moral question in politics is whether violence is better/worse than non-violence. I think (hope) that’s a fairly easy question for a libertarian to answer.
Sukrit, I think nuclear weapons could compensate. Maybe you didn’t understand what I said last time, but you only need the threat — you don’t actually need them — I think its estimated that Japan, for instance, could create them in less than two weeks, so whilst they have China breathing down their neck, its clear they have this sort of defence capability if they want it (although of course the most likely place conflict will break out in that region is over the Spratley’s, where these sorts of weapons are no use).
Making sure everyone knows you could create them with the click of your fingers (like Japan) but not creating them is good, since you get all the benefits without the problems.
it’s not for the opponents of multi-billion dollar failed government programs to defend their libertarianism. It’s for the proponents of huge government programs to defend their statism.
Leaving aside your use of the word “failed”, I did not say anything to the contrary. My questions weren’t rhetorical, as perhaps you are assuming, they were simply questions. Why is Australia’s defence posture necessarily related to whether the US’s involvement in Iraq is legitimate? I don’t think the post made the connection.
In terms of defensive capabilities in our region, only Taiwan puts us to shame/i
I don’t think that’s true. Japan’s military is larger than ours, very competent and entirely defensive in its posture.
when you talk about morals in politics what are you talking about? Unless we’re talking about consequences (ie costs and benefits) then the only moral question in politics is whether violence is better/worse than non-violence. I think (hope) that’s a fairly easy question for a libertarian to answer.
I certainly agree that’s an easy question to answer, however I think it’s too simplistic by itself to define what’s morally right and wrong.
Basically my postion with Iraq comes down to two questions:
1. do we have the moral perogative to use violence?
2. If so, is it worth our while (cost/benefit).
In a very Randian fashion I believe the moral rightness or wrongness comes from civilised behaviour, which is pretty much based on the libertarian chestnut of the ‘non-initiation of violence’ principle. We should behave in a civilised fashion to other civilised nations. Nations that are not civilsed are not worthy of this courtesy. Was Iraq civilised? No Way! It was a tribal culture run by a thug and lots of sub-thugs through threat of the gun, who justified their actions according to religious mysticism. It was barely above law of jungle. Hence we had no moral prerogative to deal with them according to the ‘non-initiation of violence’ principle’ i.e. it was morally right to go to war if we chose. (And I’m not saying this means that human rights go out the window etc, we still have to respect individuals. But individuals do get killed in wars, it’s an unfortunate reality of our condition).
Now, was it worth the cost/benefit ratio. That’s another question.
By the way: I think this,
In terms of Asian allies… if we are to stay true to the “old Alliance” with the west (which we should absolutely do) then the logical candidates are Japan (who we’ve been talking to lately) and India (who is the logical counter-balance to China) and Taiwan (who needs all the friends they can get). While we should pursue strong economic ties with China I don’t think we should be fully comfortable of the idea of a China-run world.
is an excellent summary.
My post was written hastily so I apologise if it gave the impression that I wanted an “Iraq war right/wrong” debate. That’s not the discussion I was trying to start.
Nothing about morals either… although to go off track, I think the mass murder of innocents, whether it’s by the US or by Saddam, is wrong.
The going into Iraq debate only started because the US wanted us on board. You could substitute North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, or whatever country the US feels like invading next.
I agree “anti-American” was the wrong choice of words on my part to make the point that Australia would need to think twice before disagreeing with the US on any aspect of the ‘War on Terror’.
Well subsidising the defence of other countries by having US taxpayers foot the bill of a global American police force seems anti-libertarian to me.
The US would probably be more concerned about the intelligence facilities we let them maintain on Australian soil than our shared values if it came to war. Australia is just a tiny nation with no real political or military clout. We need them more than they need us. India also shares similar values. It’s a democracy apparently.
Our default position out of necessity until we:
1. go nuclear
2. become super-close buddies with a major Asian power
3. increase our defense spending significantly
…is to do whatever the US says we should do on foreign wars (as we did on Vietnam and Korea). Doesn’t matter what our personal views on Iraq are – there’s no room for principle when reality bites. Of course, there’s nothing that says Australia absolutely must send troops to every US foreign excursion. We could refuse. But few PMs take that chance, and it seems like the default position must always be pro-US unless there is a very very compelling reason to disagree.
Now, does anyone disagree with this above characterisation, or am I pretty much repeating what everyone knows?
does anyone disagree with this above characterisation, or am I pretty much repeating what everyone knows?
I disagree Sukrit. The US went to Somalia, Panama, Grenada and other places I have forgotten about without us. It didn’t affect our relationship.
The US wanted a coalition to go into Iraq. It has one in Afghanistan and had one in the first Gulf War; the attacks on Serbia in Kosovo and Bosnia were under the auspices of NATO. It does not seek the role of world policeman and does not like acting alone.
If the UN was not so paralysed by petty rivalry from the likes of France and Russia, its interventions would be legitimised by the Security Council (if legitimised is the right word). As a founding member of the UN, Australia would then be under the same moral obligation and pressure to support these interventions.
Americans also place a high emphasis on moral values. As a liberal democracy (more or less), we are seen as natural allies. Sure, the intelligence facilities are handy but their signficance is a lot less than it was during the cold war.
I don’t think Australia supports the US because of an abandonment of principle. I think it does so because it often shares the same principles.
I’m with David on this, especially the last paragraph, and especially with the current government.
This is where it all falls down. Libertarians shouldn’t support the “principles” of governments that go around invading other countries unless it is an absolute last resort and in self-defence.
Humanitarian reasons don’t count.
In the *domestic* context libertarians spend their energies trying to prevent the ultimate abuse of government power, ie. actions leading to the death of an individual. Libertarians are supposed to be fighting against arbitrary power and for the rule of law.
But when it’s an *international* war thing, all principles go out the window!
I liked this by Harry Browne, the author of the book I cited above:
“If government has a role to play in foreign affairs, it isn’t to win wars, to assure that the right people run foreign countries, to protect innocent foreigners from guilty aggressors, or to make the world safe for democracy – or even a safer place at all.
If government has a role, it can be only to keep us out of wars – to make sure no one will ever attack us, to make certain you can live your life in peace, to assure you the freedom to ignore who is right and who is wrong in foreign conflicts.
The only reason for military power is to discourage attackers, and – if they come anyway – to repel them at our borders. Such things as stationing troops in far-off lands, meddling in foreign disputes, and sending our children to foreign countries as ‘peacekeepers’ only encourage war.”
This is the same government that cannot win the War against Drugs, the War against Crime, the War against Poor Health Care and numerous other Wars. In many of these areas the government has managed to achieve the opposite of the intended result. It’s possible the War on Terror will do the same.
And one for the road:
“…the military is simply the Post Office in battle fatigues”. 🙂
But when it’s an *international* war thing, all principles go out the window!
This isn’t true. When we talk about domestic matters we are talking about people living under a common rule of law. When we talk about ‘*international* war things’ we talk about conflicting value systems clashing.
I agree with the sentiment, Sukrit. And I would like to believe in the purist libertarian postion with regards to international affairs as much as I would love to believe a benevolent god is watching over me, but neither case is the reality. The fact is when different value systems clash at this level we go to war. This doesn’t mean human rights go out the window. But war is one of the last choices which no one likes and it’s always more costly and more gruesome than expected. And wars create collateral damage and some of that collateral consists of human lives. Simple facts of life. You can accept it or if you can’t deal with it try turning to a god or something to make you feel better about everyone going to heaven.
The purist libertarian position with regards to international affairs is like the saying ‘why can’t everyone just get along’!
DavidL — I agree that our Defence posture & alliances are not related to whether Iraq was a good idea.
Michael — the questions you ask (“whether it is moral to help somebody if they have a shitty life or are suffering hardship”) is an important moral question. But moral philosophy and political philosophy are different issues. This distinction is, in my opinion, one of the most important distinctions in all social science and it is one that leftists and conservatives constantly forget when they jump from “gay is bad” to “government ban gay” or “poor Africans are starving” to “government give foreign aid”.
If the invasion of Iraq was privately funded (as many wars in Africa are) then the argument would be different. I note that arch-warnick and anarcho-captialist Alex Robson held the position that he supported the war but opposed the fact that it was taxpayer funded.
And I’m definitely with DavidL & Michael on the nature of our alliance with the US. We most certainly do not need to jump at their order to retain a healthy relationship with America. The reality is that if a rouge Ukraine decided to invade France (which would cause the French to immediately surrender) the US would still defend France. And we’re in a lot better position than France (better friend & more important strategically). The western alliance isn’t that fragile.
DavidL is right when he channels Samuel Huntington (“clash of civilisations”) by saying that we are united by our joint membership of a thing called the “west”. Sure — make new friends. But there’s no reason to leave our old friends and they won’t be leaving us any time soon.
Sukrit, those wars were unwinnable, deliberately so. The best way for any government to increase its’ powers is to engage in a war. Canberra took over income taxes in ww2, i believe. Having a ‘War’ of any kind usually justifies new taxes and new ‘rights’ of governments and their agants to intrude into people’s lives. The American ‘War on Drugs’ is eroding all their constitutional rights.
Maybe governments are supposed to bring peace to their subjects, but the humans who make up governments have other ideas! Perhaps the ideal form of Government would have no human parts- computers and robots doing it all. I hope not, but it’s possible.
As for alliances, that depends on which sort of libertarian you are. An Anarcho-Capitalist would not have a government, so there would be no alliances possible. Minarchists might have defence forces, and thus alliances.
the questions you ask (”whether it is moral to help somebody if they have a shitty life or are suffering hardship”)
I’m not really sure where this came from but it’s not the quesstion(s) I’m asking when I assess the morality of the war. It’s got nothing to do with helping someone in need. It’s about civilsed people using violence against others.
Also, I agree that the war being funded by taxes is less than perfect. But this comes down to the argument of can we have no government, or are there some essential things that government does, or are there some things that government can do best so we should let it anyway. It’s one of the problems of living in the real world like the fact that some unfortunate individuals get killed in wars when that really isn’t the intention.
The assumption that the US would come to our aid regardless of whether we pay off the premium on our insurance policy – supporting them in the UN, sending troops to foreign wars each & every time they request it – seems to conflate ‘friend’ (which includes all the shared values stuff) with ‘interest’.
The US might be a permanent friend. But unless Australia continues to do things that allow it to have an interest in sending its soldiers to die for us, there are no guarantees. Far from it. Governments change, and memories are short.
And that is a very sensible position. Why should we think that just because the US appears to be a taking a pro-active role in foreign affairs it will not carefully evaluate its own interests, which are very distinct from our own, if Australia is ever in trouble? Of course I’m imagining a worst-case scenario that’s unlikely to happen, but it could be that the country that invades us is more valuable to the US than we are.
I recommend reading a paper by June Verrier in volume 57 (no. 3) of the Australian Journal of International Affairs. She points out that Britain diverted Australian forces for the defence of India despite Australia feeling itself under threat from the Japanese before the fall of Singapore. The Suez Canal crisis is an example of competing interests between allies.
I’ve come to believe that war does mean human rights go out the window. There is very little accountability in war. I don’t think the US keeps track of how many civilians it kills.
The libertarian world-view is not about hoping everyone can get along. And I don’t think it necessarily means cutting defense spending. In America’s case it could mean diverting resources from maintaining the self-perpetuating military behemoth overseas towards defensive measures at home (eg. nuclear missile defence shield, anti-terrorism preparation). Maintaining a credible military threat able to protect the life, liberty and property of those at home is very much libertarian. What’s not libertarian is going overseas and using taxpayer money to try and make the world a better place, in the process making those on the receiving end angry at what they naturally see as imperialism.
I personally think the US/UN has an important role in intervening during wars of aggression (eg. Saddam invading Kuwait), because it sends a clear message that aggression is wrong. But it doesn’t seem to make sense to pre-emptively knock out dictators or invade countries based on ‘domino theories’ or whatever. Otherwise you could have unintended consequences worse than the original problem.
I profoundly disagree with this “summary”:
The only reason for military power is to discourage attackers, and – if they come anyway – to repel them at our borders. Such things as stationing troops in far-off lands, meddling in foreign disputes, and sending our children to foreign countries as ‘peacekeepers’ only encourage war.”
This is the same government that cannot win the War against Drugs, the War against Crime, the War against Poor Health Care and numerous other Wars. In many of these areas the government has managed to achieve the opposite of the intended result. It’s possible the War on Terror will do the same.
In my opinion, libertarianism applies only to individual rights. Thus while it is valid to condemn “wars” against drugs, crime, health care, etc because they involve government imposing solutions on individuals, it is not valid to link that to wars between nations. Nations are not individuals.
John H makes the point that governments should not spend our taxes engaged in wars when our own security is not threatened. That argument, at least, comes from a libertarian perspective (ie low taxes). But that is nowhere near the end of it.
If Sukrit’s proposition had been applied last century, Kaiser Wilhelm would have permanently occupied much of Europe. Hitler and Tojo would have divided most of the world up between them; Pol Pot might still be killing Cambodians; Serbia would have wiped out Bosnia and Kosovo; Noriega would have turned Panama into a drug empire; and Indonesian armed militias would have wiped out much of East Timor.
As it is, non intervention allowed the Turkish genocide of Armenians, Pol Pot’s killing fields, the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda and the massacre of Bosnians at Srebrenica. It is right now allowing the massacre of animists in Sudan.
There is a case for military intervention where it will prevent profound coercion of fellow human beings. Yes, they are foreigners, but I don’t think a nation of immigrants has any strong claim on national distinctions. Yes it will involve expenditure of our taxes outside our national boundaries, but that simply reinforces the need to ensure the intervention is thoroughly warranted. Perhaps history will prove Iraq was not such a case.
We degrade our civilisation by simply watching foreigners kill each other and only getting involved if they start trying to kill us. Humanity is far more important than what passport you happen to have.
it could be that the country that invades us is more valuable to the US than we are
That’s wrong. Nobody would argue the US is perfect, but it is more inclined to act on moral grounds than any other country.
For example, when Argentina invaded the Falklands its economic interests lay more with Argentina than the UK. Nonetheless, it provided valuable intelligence assistance to the UK and also helped to buy up all the Exocets so the Argentinians couldn’t get them.
If the USA were a libertopia, then it would not have alliances around the world, since the dangers of a standing army were well-known to them. (Everyone should read,’War and the Rise of the State’, for a good summary of such dangers.) Presumably other countries would have needed to handle their dangers on their own, though individuals from the USA would have voluntarily joined the defenders’ armies.
If America had not supported South Vietnam, then Vietnam would have been Communist earlier, but it might have been more like Tito’s Yugoslavia, a neutral Communism that collapsed when he did. Instead, the long war to reunite the country is used as an excuse to hang on to their power, and has made them more anti-American than they would otherwise have been.
I still believe that a libertopia would be neutral in terms of alliances, even if some of the individuals wanted to support a side in a war.
Libertopia can be neutral without being passive.
Thus, while it might not have taken sides in the Vietnam conflict (which was in essence a civil war, albeit fought as a proxy for the cold war), it would not necessarily sit by while Pol Pot killed off millions of Cambodians, the Hutus butchered the Tutsis in Rwanda or Milosevic did the same to Croats, moslems and ethnic Albanians.
And Libertopia does not necessarily have to sit by while Mugabe starves and kills people or the the animists in Darfur are slaughtered, whether or not that encourages anti-Libertopian feelings.
I think a libertopian GOVERNMENT would stand by, but the INDIVIDUALS in that society could organize a private society to help in other countries. Perhaps we should turn Libertarian International into a multinational army, the mongrel legion, always helping the underdog! Sukrit is right when saying that the purpose of governments is to help their own citizens, even if it rarely sticks to that purpose.
I’ve come to believe that war does mean human rights go out the window. There is very little accountability in war. I don’t think the US keeps track of how many civilians it kills.
This is simply not true. People are held to account when they pariticipate in war, reflected by the court cases, people in jail and military careers that are being ended right at this moment. A soldier’s conduct, especially that of a senior officer, is under extreme scrutiny at time of war. This scrutiny is increasing with technology. I assure you that the US has data on how many civilians have been killed and you know this data is not made readily available for obvious reasons. To suggest that a civilsed nation can wage a war without public or legal scrutiny is really just based in the same emotional rubbish that people use to justify illogical positions of pacifism.
All of this talk of human rights as if they are universal is not realistic either. Human rights come from civilised nations. There is no godlike omnipresent source of human rights. They come from the society that upholds them.
Also, the moral underpinnings for the war was not the poor oppressed Iraqi people (although, I admit, this does lend some moral weight but not enough to justify violence on it’s own). The war is justified due to the need for the West to protect itself from a new era of terrorism conducted by people opposed to everything the West stands for.
Finally,
But it doesn’t seem to make sense to pre-emptively knock out dictators or invade countries based on ‘domino theories’ or whatever.
pre-emptive strikes are completely morally justifiable, although I agree that they can have unintended consequences. Just like putting a criminal in jail once you’ve collected the evidence to prove they’re about to conduct a crime like planting a bomb somewhere. It’s better not to wait until after the fact. I think that in this new age of warfare (i.e. the War on Terror……..(and for John H, that’s referring to ‘terror’ the political and military philosophy not the verb)…….) they will become increasingly relevant if not essential for ‘open’ nations to protect themselves from increasingly sneaky duplicitous terrorist movements.
“The assumption that the US would come to our aid regardless of whether we pay off the premium on our insurance policy – supporting them in the UN, sending troops to foreign wars each & every time they request it – seems to conflate ‘friend’ (which includes all the shared values stuff) with ‘interest’.”
Look people are beginning to lose the plot here. Americans might be reading this and we ought not be talking smugly about insurance policies here. Its more like blood oaths sanctified by blood and sacred honour. Thats how a good alliance ought to work.
University-trained-types are beginning to talk like that Italian undertaker who asks Vito to kill some guys for money.
These are our friends. And they were right and moral to invade Iraq the second time. They could have avoided the first Gulf War. Or they could have made it mostly a proxy war. They couldn’t avoid the second and hold their head up since the other alternatives were worse.
They botched it up thanks largely to lying leftists conducting political warfare against any important person to the success of that war. They botched it also by not maxing out on proxy-war. That is to say not putting their own soldiers lives first.
They botched it up also because of this cult of giving the regimes the benefit of the doubt when it comes to terrorism.
And they botched it up by not treating the whole Dictatorship/Intelligence/Jihadism network as simply one big hydra. Many heads. All one beast.
We cannot hope to stop breakouts of terrorism, ransoming and hostage-taking unless we hold regimes accountable, who are known to assist these practices. Holding them accountable is more akin to actually grabbing the leader of the country and holding his head underwater then it is protesting about crap at the United Nazis in New York.
If it was the wrong thing to finish that US/Iraqi war that had been waging some 12 years at the time… If it was wrong to try and bring that ugly ugly business to a close… Then we ought not have assisted them with it.
We assisted them because it was the right thing to do.
And John Howard handled it very well.. terrible thief that he is… He handled this very well since so far very few of our people are dead.
These Americans are our mates. And they were attacked by scum. Most likely with Saddam involved. And you stick by your mates, unless they are doing the wrong thing.
Not a criticism of Howards handling of it. But in future we ought to be not limiting the size and scope of our assistance so much as limiting the TIME PERIOD of our involvement.
If you are on your own the idea is to make your wars BIG AND SHORT.
Because if you are in and out in three months that means that your surplus kickass is in play in your further negotiations immediately. And the dictators weigh their options with one eye focusing on the imperative of not doing anything to bring Australia back into the fray.
So we ought to have gone in and got some Iraqi leadership scalps. Done some severe damage to Syrian capabilities or leadership if we could, pummelled away until any hostages were returned…
.. And gotten home within 4 or 5 months.
This would be a display that folks would take note of. Particularly if we could mobilize on a hair-trigger in such a way as to shame much more populous nations.
Actually we ought not have done that this time round. We don’t have that capability and the American shield is still in place for the moment. But I’m more looking to the future, expecting we will likely have to get by on our own.
In general we would have tried to go in harder with more resources. But strictly limit (IN ADVANCE WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF OUR ALLY) the time period of our involvement.
All this talk is a little bit besides the point however. Since right now the most important thing is to get a new Raptor every quarter and build up a massive team of part-timers ahead of getting more of these Raptors.
Enough people and refuelers to get 90% of any Raptors we have in the air all the time.
We want to experiment with airborne pilot changeovers and airborne bomb-replacement if thats at all practical.
In an ideal world, Australia would become the world’s first libertopia, which then inspires the yous (U.K. and U.S.A.) to become libertopias, with free exchange of people and goods, and a mutual defence pool, paid for out of Insurance funds which would be voluntarily sponsored by civilians who would get back Insurance in case of property damage. This is an idealised case, and it might be hard to bring about, but it would be very desireable if we could create it. If anyone is interested in private defence forces, the Mises Economic Blog has a few good columns on these subjects.
David and Michael
This is turning into the debate I didn’t want to have, mainly because it would be very time consuming and I’m supposed to be writing a politics essay. Perhaps some other time.
My point is that if there were no US alliance to worry about, Australia shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. It was not our fight. And I’m very sceptical about Afghanistan too.
This will seem callous, given they are our ‘friends’… but we’re talking about government to government relationships here. It’s not like I can ring up John Howard or George Bush. They’re not MY friends. On the contrary, they are the enemy – they are the same people happy to take away my freedom in a domestic context. The aim of a libertarian should be to prevent them from taking away the freedom of others in addition to the illegal detention, denial of habeus corpus, illegal wire-tapping, torture (Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay), and extraordinary rendition they seem to turn a blind eye to anyway.
Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have had their freedom diminished – because they’re dead.
Emotion and idealistic stuff about “people opposed to everything the West stands for” and “Humanity is far more important than what passport you happen to have” is political rhetoric, not analysis. What is needed is an objective analysis of the level of the threat (that means comparing it with the risk of dying in numerous other more mundane ways) and the appropriate (and proportionate) response of government in combating that threat.
How many terrorist attacks have we had on Australian soil? I bet we could count the number on one hand.
The terrorists hit a raw nerve by attacking the US, but they are not as prevalent or powerful as the politicians would have you believe. They used domestic aeroplanes, not nuclear bombs.
Only in very rare situations is there such a thing as offensive defence policy. Defence means defending what’s in your national borders from state and non-state threats, full stop.
Taxpayers should not have their government subsidise the quality of life of Iraqis or anyone else. The purpose of an elected government is to ensure security for those who elected them.
I’m going to leave it at that and recommend you both read this article by Harry Browne written immediately after September 11.
Cheers,
Sukrit
I do think DavidL (and others) are on the right track with the idea of shared values. Graeme puts it more dramatically with the notion of blood oaths but either way the essence is right. We are less likely to have future conflicts with nations that share our values, hence we have an interest in defending and promoting nations that share our values. Where our friends are is also generally where our interests are. Of course if we think our friend is doing something that is costly and damaging to themselves we have an interest it rebuking them. That is not the same as abandoning them. On balance I think we were right to support the USA on the ground in Iraq but wrong not to be more vocal about the potential folly of the whole thing.
Sukrit, you have a funny way of not having a debate. I’m not going to let you get away with a final fling when your reasoning is so flawed.
John Howard or George Bush. They’re not MY friends. On the contrary, they are the enemy – they are the same people happy to take away my freedom in a domestic context. The aim of a libertarian should be to prevent them from taking away the freedom of others in addition to the illegal detention, denial of habeus corpus, illegal wire-tapping, torture (Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay), and extraordinary rendition they seem to turn a blind eye to anyway.
That argument bears a striking similarity to the dogma of the leftists. Because of Guantamo Bay/Abu Ghraib/dead innocent children/pick a reason, Bush and Howard are morally equivalent to Saddam Hussein. It is the same argument that was once applied to the Soviets and the Americans.
The faults of Bush and Howard (in reality their administrations) are those of poor judgement (about which we are wise in hindsight) and failure to uphold our society’s standards of decency. They are not comparable to those of murderous dictators.
If the aim of libertarians is to prevent JH and GB from taking away the freedom of others, why shouldn’t libertarians have the same aim with Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot, etc etc?? Indeed, shouldn’t our aim be more focused on those that will never be removed at the ballot box?
Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have had their freedom diminished – because they’re dead.
Thousands lost their freedom that way from Saddam too. And most of the deaths since Saddam was overthrown have been at the hands of other Iraqis. And it will get a lot worse once the Americans leave too.
What is needed is an objective analysis of the level of the threat … and the appropriate (and proportionate) response of government in combating that threat.
That is a repeat of your prior argument based on national sovereignty. It is not analysis. Preventing foreigners from killing each other once in a while is a lot more than “political rhetoric”.
How many terrorist attacks have we had on Australian soil? I bet we could count the number on one hand.
I agree, and I also agree the reaction by both the Australian and US governments is seriously overblown and bad for our freedom. But that does nothing to support your argument that we have no military interest in anything that does not threaten our sovereignty. National sovereignty is seriously overblown as well.
Incidentally, while I am reading the Browne article I recommend you look at the Mises stuff on private defence forces. And please stop using leftie arguments – I’m getting worried about you.
The idea of a Mongrel legion is ridiculous. There is no way that any country which had a number of people in that legion, to the point where they comprised a significant and noticeable part of that force, would not be regarded as responsible by any country, or force in conflict with them. This would still apply whether or not that nation disowned them and cut them loose totally.
This would undoubtedly create the likelihood of reprisal attacks either by conventional force or by Special Forces, or terrorists, thus creating a serious danger to the (for want of a better word) host country, without any actual commitment by it. Such an act would drag that nation into a war, which would not be of its own choosing.
“Libertaria,” I prefer that name, (I am not utopian, I was, but grew out of it), would probably not object to citizens who felt strongly enough, joining the armed forces of another country that was the subject of aggression etc., but would have to accept in doing so, that leftists may want to fight for Mugabe, while rightists may wish to fight for some of the more abhorrent right wing regimes. Fair for one fair for all.
In conclusion, while I can see good reason for pacifists to favour the Libertarian movement, as we are less likely to go to war, there is a moral right to defend life, liberty, and all of our other rights. The idea that Libertaria should have no armed forces has no moral foundation.
The citizens of such a country would, in reality volunteer to fight more readily than under any other system, simply for the reason that they have more to loose.
‘My point is that if there were no US alliance to worry about, Australia shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. It was not our fight. And I’m very sceptical about Afghanistan too.’
Sure it was our fight.
Australians were murdered by jihadists in New York and Bali.
And in any case an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us and regime leadership has to pay. There’s a weird strain within the libertarian movment wherein they reckon that government is bad and government ought not exist…
……And then they want to let every evil government in the world off the hook no matter who they kill.
Government is the problem here. When we have a problem with a half dozen jihadist government helping terrorists we’ve got to line one or more of them up and just kill a few dozen of the upper leadership.
We may not have the capacity to do that right now.’
But we can get it if we want it.
I share your skepticism about Afghanistan. It was more of a host-country then a driving force. But I’m sure not sad to see those guys go and it only took a bit of proxy war and two months of bombing.
A bargain.
Michael — considering the existence of privately-funded war doesn’t mean I’m talking about anarcho-capitalism. It is possible to have privately-funded goods and services in an economy that still has a government. It’s just that government action (as violence against Australians) can only be justified by it’s positive consequences.
Sukrit — I share your skepticism of the Iraq war and the Afghan war and I like Harry Browne and have read his writings from around the time of S11. However, your position on the US alliance seems inconsistent…
You mention (rightly I believe) that America is going to act in their own interests. Then you say (wrong I believe) that the consequence of this is we jump at their every command. America’s interest in us is strategic and has to do with maintaining a strong western presence and a like-minded country in an important part of the world. Whether we send 5 GIs and a pet goat to help guard a school gate in south-west Basra isn’t going to change that.
Incidently, Robyn Lim recently wrote an “occasional paper” for the CIS on the evolution of the US alliance and the potential future need for nukes. It’s available on the front page of their website (www.cis.org.au — scroll down a bit).
Government action can only be justified by its positiove consequence????????????
You turned Soothsayer now Humphreys.
That is so stupid because it means that all the enemy has to do is generate negative consequences and then you dumb statisticians will retrospectively say it wasn’t justified.
John – I have no problems with private funding of the war. And I agree that this would be a good way to ensure we don’t have wars we don’t need. And that it would probably mean that Iraq in it’s current form wouldn’t happen (but maybe Iraqi insurgents would end up being funded). No problems here.
But I also believe that the War on Terror when considered across all its facets is still net positive despite the enormous financial cost and cost in lives. An evil necessity perhaps, but that still makes it net positve. The victory of an evil ideology like radical Islam and/or empowered dictatorships, while remote, would still have huge consequences to civilisation to the point of ushering in another Dark Ages.
Sukrit – I still disagree. No US alliance would not mean that Australia should not have gone into Iraq. It is our fight and when the opportunity came to do away with a regime like Sadam’s then we should grab it. We did, the cost was higher than expected, but at the time it was still the right decision. We stand with the US in defence of those ’emotional and idealistic’ Western values!
(By the way, is “people opposed to everything the West stands for” so emotional and idealistic? I’d say the ‘West’ represents a very reasoned, defined and principled value system, namely freedom, individualism, reason, free markets, consensual government and secular democracy. I’d also say the regime in Iraq, the people who hijacked aircraft on 9/11, the Taliban, Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilali! oppose those values and for humanity’s sake they’re worth defending when required. Not saying there shouldn’t be ‘objective analysis’ or cost/benefit consideration, but at the end of the day this defence won’t come for free.)
Michael — it makes no sense to only judge the “war on terrorism” (whatever that means) as a whole. We should judge each action of government on it’s merits.
For example, you might argue that the current government is better than having no government, and so government provides a net positive. But you can’t use that line of logic to justify each specific government policy.
Also, the costs of the Iraq war were not much “higher than expected” to anybody who was objectively assessing this massive government tax-eating welfare program. The fact that anti-war libertarians did predict the negative outcome correctly might give pause to consider our warnings in the future. But the sad truth is that next time the government manages to generate mass fear then there will always be a group of willing dupes who trust their government and are happy to sacrifice their freedoms. God help us.
And the Iraq war had nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism. Saddam was a different sort of bastard, with a system more akin to traditional national socialism and quite hostile with islamic socialism. This hostility between different forms of socialism was predicted by Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” and also explains why national socialists and soviet socialists were so hostile to each other. The consequence (easily predictable) of the war is that islamic socialism is growing in strength in Iraq. Opps!
Finally — on what basis do you think the “war on terror” (sic) is a net positive. Once you consider the actual costs of terrorism (which are extremely low on any objective assessment) then it is almost impossible to justify the cost in money, lives or lost liberties. History will judge the war on terror as a very obvious trick to increase the power of governments and future generations will be legitimately confused as to why we were so irrationally scared and how we were so easily fooled.
John
Please draw a Line in the sand and tell when do you act agaisnt murderous thugs?
Clinton tried your method in the 90’s. It didn’t work. Policing was useless.
Reagan walked away froma fight inh the 80’s
Please tell us when you cost/ benefit analysis would have told us to act agaisnt the nazis?
The US tried isolationism in the 30’s which is something similar but not identical to what you are suggesting and it made things a lot worse.
Military spending is a dead weight cost. We all know that. In fact it is one of the worst things we can do with our money. However I have’t yet heard of something better.
Finally — on what basis do you think the “war on terror” (sic) is a net positive. Once you consider the actual costs of terrorism (which are extremely low on any objective assessment) then it is almost impossible to justify the cost in money, lives or lost liberties.
The actual costs of terrorism include the potential future risks these ideologies will have on civilisation. I agree that the costs of terrorist events that have already happened in the West are low. The risk of fascist ideologies gaining ground and being in a position to do real long-lasting damage is another very real cost, which I would say is substantially greater than the cost of terrorist attacks that have already happened. This is the ideological battle of our time.
Military spending is a dead weight cost. We all know that. In fact it is one of the worst things we can do with our money. However I have’t yet heard of something better.
Bit like democracy being a terrible system, it’s just better than the alternatives!
John actually agrees with long term treaties and a standing army. John is perhaps falling into the trap of objective, not subjective economic valuation.
Policing is not useless. The war in Afghanistan is a police action. If people don’t want to surrender terrorists, the policing nation has a right to and will use military force. Clinton was unlucky, Bush got lucky a few months ago when airpower was used against an al Qaida operative in Somalia.
Reagan probably should have invaded Lybia. A Kosovo war styled airpower campaign can work against Iran because the conditions are similar. Iraq has become a magnet for al Qaida sympathisers. Like it or not, it really is a battleground against al Qaida. That said, no war in Iraq may have seen a much quicker end to al Qaida.
The US has the right to invade Syria and Iran because of their involvement in arming insurgent forces. Such action probably isn’t however feasible.
Personally I think problems should be dealt with regionally. Australia should cut off aid to the pacific and threaten annexation if they become failed states or harbour terrorists. Australia should engage piracy to our north if other nations become impotent. Similarly, South Africa should liberate and annex Zimbabwe, and offer independence after a decade or so of reconstruction and “denazification”.
Zero tolerance policing says that every crime should have consequences. Hense you will expend a lot of effort bringing minor property offenders to justice beyond what a single instance cost benefit analysis would justify. The rational is that a break down in law and order invites an escalation in criminality which is far more expensive to suffer and resolve in the long term. Appeasing petty criminals because it is not worth the expense may be myopic.
However translating that logic onto the international stage is not so straight forward. It makes sence to topple regimes from time to time to keep the criminality at bay. However taking over an entire nation and inheriting it’s woes is problematic. The USA was right to seek a quick exit from Iraq in the first instance and it is unfortunate that they have since become a part of the local political scenery. The problem is that with one arm now tied up in Iraq and with war no longer domestically popular the USA is perhaps less intimidating to many of it’s enemies. And it’s allies are now less supportive.
No arguments with any of that, Terje. We get hung up on trying too hard to be ‘nice’ and trying to look like good people in the eyes of the international community. We should just stick to our principles and ensure we keep to the moral straight and narrow. It’s not like the people criticising the war respect being ‘nice’ anyway.
No arguments with any of that, Terje. We get hung up on trying too hard to be ‘nice’ and trying to look like good people in the eyes of the international community. We should just stick to our principles and ensure we keep to the moral straight and narrow. It’s not like the people criticising the war respect being ‘nice’ anyway. Perhaps that meant taking an early exit. I don’t have the solution, but I’m pretty sure ‘inheriting it’s woes’ and becoming ‘part of the local political scenery’ isn’t the way to go.
Trinifar, what we get out of the alliance is the assurance that if Fiji or Das Soloman-Islanders or EnZed (Kiwiland to you) became aggressive, The USA would nuke our enemies for us. USA gets lots of space to play war-games, and put in secret bases like Pine Gap, which is where all the UFOes end up since Area 51 became too popular. Of course, if the Indonesians invaded, that’s not covered by the treaty, so they’d take back all their toys and leave us to duke it out.
I will stick to Libertopia, because -topia means ‘place’ in Greek (Utopia was Eu-topia, good-place). Also, a dweller in a Libertaria would be a Libertarian, but that is what we call people who want a better society, ourselves! I think we can leave Libertaria as an idealised place, and any actual society would be a libertopia, with libertopians as people contained in such a place, or coming from an actual liberty-loving country.
Just as a communist hopes to live in a commune, and a communard does live in one, so a libertarian hopes to live in liberty, and a libertopian would be living in one! Thus, ideally, a libertarian would hope to become a libertopian. If we use the terms like this, we’ll have no trouble.
OK Humphreys.
Out with it.
Its 12/9/01….. What you going to do?
It is often said that if we pull out of Iraq we will embolden the enemy. Crap. if we pull out and they keep killing each other then the world will see where the real problems lies: with them not us. If the terrorists and the civial war turns Iraq into a bloodbath that is their fault, not ours.
There are multitudes of stuffed up impoverished countries in the world and many, many people still blame these problems on the greedy west for being too successful and too rich. People don’t seem to blame failed nations for their own failures. People don’t seem to look at poverty in Ethiopia and ask what dumb ass politician caused this stuff up. They don’t look at poverty in Mexico and ask what failed principles kept these people down for so many years. What they frequently do is infer that the cause of civil war and poverty is always the fault of rich westerners who are not compassionate enough. So your theory kind of sucks. It also assumes that we shouldn’t care if bad Iraqis kill good Iraqis.
“It is often said that if we pull out of Iraq we will embolden the enemy. Crap. if we pull out and they keep killing each other then the world will see where the real problems lies: with them not us. If the terrorists and the civial war turns Iraq into a bloodbath that is their fault, not ours.”
“Fault” does not matter when strategic failure and unintended consequences occur.
JIMUNRO- have you ever heard of Mercenaries? The Mongrel Legion could simply be a mercenary network, mercenaries who specialise in libertarianising societies. Most countries allow mercenaries to live within their borders IF the mercs are NOT doing anything inside the country. ‘The Dogs Of War’, by Frederick Forsyth, featured such people.
Just as the internet allows us to keep in touch, so a global network of mercs could keep in touch.
In some cases, like Zimbabwe, the host nations of such people might want someone else to help clean up a nation. If such a group already existed, most countries would look the other way if they went into Zimbabwe. And I don’t think even lefties would support Mugabe now, not in numbers to matter. So the idea is not daft, merely radical.
Nicholas- it is an interesting concept when you put in that context.
I am not sure about the idea of Libertarian mercenaries; I will have to think a bit on that. Most mercenaries seem in concept, to be the type of people who are prepared to fight and kill for a client, in return for payment. As such, I feel that most of them have some sort of personality disorder, or are probably psychotic, to some extent.
I have no formal qualifications to judge this, but it seems to me to be the case. (Perhaps we could ask Dead soul to clarify this for us, he would probably know, or be able to find out). In any case they don’t strike me as having a Libertarian side.
I read ‘The Dogs of War’ a long time ago, and seem to remember that the hero was principled to some extent, although that was of course a work of fiction. There are probably not many such people in those ranks, but many of them probably think they are.
Not-withstanding what I said above I am prepared to accept the possibility, of a group of militarily trained Libertarians in the future, being outraged to sufficient degree, to form the type of unit to do such a thing, so I don’t think it’s pie in the sky.
Please bear in mind, that if ‘ Zimbabwean’ is what he says he is, then doing this would take substantially more force, than I would expect to be available from this source.
People like Mugabe for example, work politics the same as it is worked anywhere, by picking off perceived minorities, and propagandising it in such a way that the majority of the people, are either fully in favour or cant be bothered sticking their necks out, for “Those kind of people”.
Libertaria, – Libertopia
I have always thought of it as Libertaria, however I accept your choice, its not important enough to worry about, however I should have been more discreet and I apologise for offending you.
Terje,
We seem to be on the same wavelength, on your previous comment, would you mind going to;- http://jimunro.blogspot.com/ and check out ‘Exploitation’ I would value your opinion when you have time.
Regards Jim
The paragraph, ‘People like Mugabe ……..
should have read ;- by successively picking off perceived minorities.
This way a government, if it does it right can hit many groups, minorority by minority, while everyone else stands on the sidelines, thus in the end they are left with many supporters, while the opposition is demoralised and friendless, unless those groups find common ground and get together.
JC — I’ve explained my “line in the sand” for government action (domestic or international) too many times to remember. When the benefits exceed the costs. Nothing else makes sense. If you agree, then there is no argument. If you disagree (implying either that costs are better than benefits or violence is better than freedom), I can’t see how your opinion matters enough to argue with you.
Michael — I’m glad to see you admit that the entire campaign of undermining our freedoms and spending trillions of dollars (that’s a lot of money) is based on unfounded and unproven scare stories. Much like global warming. It’s easy to scare the people enough to justify huge (and hugely stupid) government intervention. It’s the role of libertarians to oppose that stupidity.
Jimunro, no worries mate. Libertaria/libertopia are just useful words. I’m a libertarian now, so where is libertaria? It must be a state of mind, not matter, an ideal, not yet the real deal. If we see references to libertopians, we’ll know that it’s referring to a future society. I hope that’s also acceptable to my fellow libertarians?
And as for mercenaries, when you use the word ‘psychotic’, it’s almost as if you disapprove! I’m sensing a lot of unfriendliness here. If they’re ‘our’ psychos, good on them! And ‘psychotic’ is a term that someone like Flash-Heart might apply to us, so let’s just talk about ‘got the right skills for the job’. Even if most mercs are non-political, the Mongrel Legion could be a core of libertarians with the money to hire an army of mercs for each job. The ML could be the few mercs who are libertarian-leaning. The other mercs will follow them for the money, but so what? If the job gets done, we’d all benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
Mr.T, this is low! You want to have the last word without even typing any words at all! Do you have ‘issues’?
“If you disagree (implying either that costs are better than benefits or violence is better than freedom), I can’t see how your opinion matters enough to argue with you.”
Methinks someone’s got an abnormally inflated ego. Talking to dumb plebs is so tiresome.
True, but don’t let it worry you, Brian. If you keep rereading it enough times, someday soon, it’ll make sense! I’m at work with Justin on a pretty picture-book for you plebs, so don’t give up hope!
Nicholas, I thought that I was agreeing with you on most points. The fact that I have serious doubts about mercenaries is not hostility, it is just my point of view. I have no hostility towards you, in fact, I usually find your views quite interesting, lucid, and informative.
Perhaps, the term Psychotic is too strong, however I don’t consider mercenaries to be mentally stable, and discipline could be a serious problem with such people, which could lead in turn to atrocities, which are a serious enough problem in conventional, armies with high degrees of discipline and standards especially during extended periods of active service. Atrocities are definitely contrary to Libertarian principles.
I am probably being a bit of a devils advocate here, as there are no easy solutions, your point has merit, as does Mark Hill in advocating policing actions to topple outlaw regimes. Before this could be done, a whole new set of principles would have to be set in place, to set the circumstances under which such action could occur, the manner of carrying it out, and ensuring the independence of the subject country after the process.
Mere furtherance of the ‘police’ country’s political, economic, or territorial interests would not be a reason to violate the independence of another.
These principles would never find their way through the convoluted processes of the U.N. and would have to be done as a treaty of sorts by what we shall call for want of a better term, “The Worlds Good Guys”.
I’ll go out on a limb here, and let you all rip me to pieces for it, but the government installed in such circumstances, need not necessarily be a democracy. I believe that certain cultures do not lend themselves to democracy, if they did, they would have one. Democracy and Libertarianism are not one and the same, although they are definitely linked. There are no libertarian democracies now.
In the nation of Libertaria (Sorry mate, and not Liberia), the government would be irrelevant, except to those who violate the rights of others, and as such its form would be irrelevant. This is because it would have very little impact on the lives of it’s citizens, and nobody would care what form it took, with the possible exception of those who wish to have power and as there wouldn’t be any power, there wouldn’t be any point. You probably need a Libertopian state of mind to envisage this.
In concluding I find it difficult to imagine even our sternest critics, calling us psychotic, unless they have some sort of psychological problems. I have heard of libertarian anarchists, republicans, Christians, atheists, etc, but libertarian psychotics is definitely a new concept. After I post this I have to go to another site to deal with some religious right person who regards me as a fascist, for my views on separation of church and state.
At least he didn’t call me psychotic.
No worries, Jim! I agree with you on most points, even that democracy is not the highest form of government. I think you’ll find, amongst libertarians, that such a limb is quite sturdy.
And I was simply pointing out that what seems psychotic to you and me might be essential in mercenary circles. Everything should be judged in context. Whilst I haven’t heard from Flash-heart in some time, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he thinks we’re psychotic, since we didn’t agree with him. We even had the hide to disagree with him, and argue back! Since everyone thinks of themselves as reasonable, any dissent must be unreasonable.
Getting back to the topic, from basic libertarian principles, we should be neutral, and only engage in self-defence pacts. Individuals could emigrate and help in other wars, but any governments should be confined to their own territories, and tend to those. Sure, the Americans have helped us up until now, but that shouldn’t dictate our future policy! And our neutrality need not be hostile to their interests, even if we do close down all the foreign (American) bases on Australian soil. If we are firm about it, they’ll respect our decisions.
I am glad we are getting along Nicholas. I agree fully that no country should dictate policy to us, not even our “greatest ally” the US. I believe in an independant forign policy, however I also believe in strong alliances and solid defence.
The only moral forms of defencive alliances tend to take the form of mutual defence pacts, which naturally involve a quid pro quo, but that should be restricted to actual attacks on either of the partners.
This however means that we should be in Afhganistan, as that country allowed itself to be used as a base for a terrorist attack on the US, and protected those who were responsible for it, thus constituting an act of war.
While I have reservations about Iraq in the light of the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I still feel the US had a right to act there as Hussein, acted as if he did have them, expressed extreme hostility to the US, had demonstrated his willingness to use them, was linked to support of terrorist organisations, and seemed pretty unstable.
Baiting a country as powerful as the US in the wake of 9/11 was probably one of the most incredible acts of stupidity anyone ever committed.
I think that with the rise of Islamofascism and its international nature, we are all together in a pact whether we like it or not.
I am glad this little argument is over, although I understand from other corrospondence here, that we still have to wait for a certain person to have the last word.
Jimunro, whilst the US went into Afghanistan, should the Australian Government have gone into the war, or should individual Australians have volunteered? Or just sent money to help the yanks, like muslims are being urged to do for Iran?
Maybe this will be the last word on this subject?
What’s the real difference between financial and material support anyway?
There is also the point that if we concede that ‘our’ government can support other country’s wars, then that is the same as the government declaring a vote-winning ‘war’ on any fashionable cause (drugs/poverty/ terrorism/whatever). Taxes might need to be raised for the just war. If governments are limited, and can’t just rush into wars, then you and I will have more money in our pockets to spend on our own causes, such as the war of our choice.
The short answer to your first question, yes. The US, an ally of ours, was attacked by forces under the protection of the Afghan government, who refused to hand them over. This constitutes a deliberate act of war against that ally. As such I have no problems with Australian involvement.
Our defense forces are strictly for volunteers only. If they wear the uniform they take the orders, asking for volunteers is not the way an army works.Volunteering in the military is like “I want three volunteers, you, you, and you”.
If in fact you are asking if non-military personnel should volunteer to fight there, that has already happened, the son of this towns Mayor for example has done two tours of Iraq as part of a US armored unit, has been wounded twice, and received a bravery award of some sort. I am sure that he is not alone.
I am not sure where you are coming from, with war on drugs/poverty, such statements are political rhetoric only, and should be treated as such. Don’t fall into the trap of believing politicians; they will con you every time. Wars on drugs, poverty, etc. are noble sounding campaigns to cover the creation of more government jobs, and to seize more power.
As for the war on terror, several people have been charged, and some convicted, on terror related offences here already. Some of them involved planning operations here. The war on terror is here, now.
My main point is that govmints will use any excuse, usually a war on something, to increase their powers. Canberra used WW2 to increase its’ powers of taxation. I admit that was for a good cause, but Canbra didn’t give those powers back after the war.
The excuse now is that we are helping an ally, and that sounds noble, but govmints are good at sounding noble for their own reasons. All the causes sound like things you should support. as though opponents of them want to drown little kittens, but the ultimate reason is that it will simple draw more power to the center. Has there ever been a war which lessened central power? Aren’t all those referendums which were rejected by us simply power grabs by Canbra, dressed up to sound good?
Yes, terrorists exist. Is the solution to give all power to the central governments? So that our own governments have the power to terrorise us?
I hope not. I hope that all libertarians will realise that the antidote to terror is knowledge and freedom. The antidote to terrorism is decentralisation, so that they have no centers to disrupt. The antidote to centralism is local democracy, not a top-heavy federalism.
Jimunro, if you think we should support the Americans, as an individual, I would agree! But I would hate to have our government conscript me ‘for the greater good’, and send me off to fight their wars. You and I should have the freedom to enlist in the side of our choice, or send money. I would gladly support the West that way.
Actually I entirely agree with you.
I can’t remember a government ever handing back “temporary” powers, and they will indeed use any excuse, not only wars to increase those powers, and yes they employ specialists in sounding reasonable.
For example Port Arthur was used as excuse to implement harsh gun control, when the reality was that if even one or two of the people there that day were carrying an evil concealed firearm, that dumb bastard would have been blown away rather quickly, probably not before doing damage, but you can’t have it all. If the possibility of an armed citizen had existed, it may not have happened at all.
But we wouldn’t want to be like America, would we?
The only protection against this, is to be incisive enough to see through those campaigns, articulate enough to argue effectively, loud enough to be heard, and thick skinned enough to cope with the vicious attacks this will bring down on your head.
Central power is, and always will be argued for, by governments. Your points are good. The fact is, and always will be, that the more complex society, or problems are, the less capable a central authority is to deal with the situation.
I could not ever support conscription. In a free society, governments derive their rights from the consent of the governed. As such, no government can claim rights that the individual does not have, as, if the individual does not have a right, they can not hand that right on to another.
Conscription is the forcible detention of people, against their wills, and forcing to render service against their wills. No individual has the right to kidnap or enslave. Therefore the state cannot claim it.
Always remember that a vocal minority with the ear of politicians is a majority in a democracy.
JIMUNRO, regarding Port Arthur and Martin Bryant- I saw a claim that Martin bought his gun/guns in a pub, i.e. nonlegally. I haven’t been able to prove the case, so does anyone else know where we can go for the facts on this matter? Re, the Virginia Tech massacre- A Samizdata.net site claims that this is a school that outlawed guns from its’ grounds! So this is not typical of America. Whilst America won’t give up its’ weapons, I wonder how soon we hear cries for more restrictions here?
Wikipedia as usual has a lot of details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre#Money_supply_and_weapon_build_up
Just this once, Terje, you can have the last word for guiding me to such an interesting entry.
Thanks. 😎