[Libertarian Review, August 1977, pp. 10=E2=80=9312] =
The July issue of Reason has a new format, which improves the =
layout=20
of the publication. But what about the content? Unfortunately, on that =
ground,=20
the new Reason seems to be worse than the old.
Let us examine some of the articles in Reason's July issue to =
see what=20
they are all about. First, one John Kizer attacks Thomas Szasz's =
libertarian=20
denunciation of involuntary mental hospitalization. Kizer analogizes =
that just=20
as the unconscious victim of an auto wreck can be justifiably =
"involuntarily"=20
treated by a doctor, a treatment that will be really voluntary =
after the=20
patient wakes up, so too can the schizophrenic or paranoiac be =
involuntarily =E2=80=94=20
"really" voluntarily =E2=80=94 treated.
Except that the schizophrenic and paranoiac are awake and conscious, =
thank=20
you, and are clearly not assenting! And, should an opponent of medical =
therapy=20
wake up from his accident and demand out, his demand, however odd, must =
be=20
granted. But what of the similar demand of the mental patient? At any =
rate,=20
whether sound or unsound, the point is that Mr. Kizer's article is =
explicitly=20
antilibertarian.
Then there is the crazed article from Canada, by one A. Michael =
Keerma, which=20
Red-baits to an extent that would not even be tolerated by National=20
Review or Human Events. First, there is the ludicrous charge =
that the=20
Parti Qu=C3=A9b=C3=A9cois and Qu=C3=A9bec Premier Ren=C3=A9 =
L=C3=A9vesque are Communists run by=20
the Soviet KGB. There is not even a coming to grips in the Keerman =
article with=20
the libertarian view that secession is a per se libertarian act, being =
the=20
dismantling of a State into constituent parts. But just when I thought =
that=20
Keerma would be calling for an all-out defense of the Canadian =
nation-state=20
against the Qu=C3=A9bec separatists, I find that the author's =
Red-baiting has boxed=20
him into a peculiar corner. For, according to Keerma, Canadian Prime =
Minister=20
Pierre Trudeau is himself a Communist and KGB tool.
It is incredible that this sort of drivel can appear in a responsible =
magazine. The truth is that neither Trudeau nor L=C3=A9vesque is a =
Communist or a=20
Soviet agent; they are simply, like nearly every other politician in the =
"free=20
world," moderate socialists, which is bad enough, but hardly a call for =
the=20
United States to become embattled, in Keerma's words, in "a war to =
determine the=20
fate of the free world." Or are we to nuke Britain, run by =
moderate-socialist=20
Callaghan?
But we have not yet come to the heart of this issue of Reason, =
which=20
is supposed to present both sides of the =
interventionism-noninterventionism=20
debate. At first sight, this aim seems a legitimate, even a noble one, =
suitably=20
democratic and free-inquiry-ish. But, on second thought, what gives =
here? Why=20
are there no debates in Reason presenting both sides of the issue =
on=20
abolishing OSHA, price controls, the draft, and whatnot? Why is there no =
article=20
praising Communism? After all, Reason is not supposed to be a =
debate=20
magazine, but a journal devoted to liberty, that is, a journal committed =
to a=20
certain world outlook. Would it publish a debate on the merits and =
demerits of=20
mass murder? But then, of course, it has now done just that, with =
more=20
space and passion devoted to the pro=E2=80=93mass murder side.[1]
Earl Ravenal's proisolationist article, "Non-Intervention: A =
Libertarian=20
Approach to Defense," is brilliant and persuasive, but it is an account =
that=20
gets neither into the historical background and current nature of the =
Cold War=20
nor into the philosophic principles involved.
To counter Ravenal, there are not one but two articles. R.J. =
Rummel's=20
"Wishful Thinking is No Defense: A Political Scientist Challenges =
Libertarian=20
Foreign Policy Myths," is a hopped-up, ranting, boobish replay of the =
most=20
absurd myths of the Cold War. The second, "Permissible Defense," by =
philosopher=20
Eric Mack, is a lengthy, confused, rambling article that, in the manner =
of=20
all-too-many libertarian philosophers, discourses on important empirical =
problems, though armed with no facts whatsoever. One conclusion emerges =
from the=20
Mack morass =E2=80=94 that isolationism is not, must not, cannot be, a =
principle of=20
libertarianism.
Eric Mack uses a device employed by all too many libertarians =
=E2=80=94 of holding=20
the ideal free-market anarchist system or a limited government as =
virtually=20
equivalent to the current State-ridden system. Thus, he points out quite =
correctly that isolationism makes no sense as a principle for a =
free-market=20
protective agency; he leaps from there to the conclusion that, at least =
for an=20
anarchist, it cannot be a binding principle for the State either. But =
for an=20
anarchist, the existing State is not a benign if a bit overly cumbersome =
surrogate for a free-market protection agency. The State is organized =
crime,=20
murder, theft, and enslavement incarnate. And even for laissez-faire =
liberals=20
the existing State should be tarred with the same dire =
labels.
Isolationism is not a principle for free-market defense agencies =
because=20
there would be no nation-state and therefore no foreign policy for =
anyone to=20
worry about. But we live, unfortunately, in a world of nation-states, in =
which=20
each State has arrogated to itself a monopoly of the use of violence =
over its=20
assumed territorial area. Therefore, to limit the aggressive use of the =
State,=20
to limit State violence over innocent people as much as possible, the=20
libertarian, be he an anarchist or a laissez-faire liberal, necessarily =
arrives=20
at the view that at least each State should confine its operations to =
that area=20
where it has a monopoly of violence, so that no interstate clashes, or, =
more=20
importantly, injuries wreaked by State A on the population of State B, =
will be=20
able to occur. The latter point is particularly important in the days of =
modern=20
technology when it is virtually impossible for State A to fight State B =
without=20
gravely injuring or murdering large numbers of civilian innocents on =
both=20
sides.
Therefore, "isolationism" =E2=80=94 the confinement of State violence =
to its own=20
territory =E2=80=94 is an important libertarian precept, whether for an =
anarchist or=20
not. Limiting government to its own territory is the foreign-policy =
analogue of=20
the domestic injunction of the laissez-faire liberal that the State not=20
interfere with the lives of its own subjects. And isolationism becomes =
all the=20
more important in our modern age of advanced technological weaponry.
There is an important philosophical error that Mack makes about =
free-market=20
defense agencies that is quite relevant to our concerns. He maintains =
that if A=20
uses B as an innocent shield to aggress against C, it is perfectly =
legitimate=20
for C to shoot B. The problem here is that Mack forgets about the rights =
of B.=20
Suppose, after all, that B has hired his own defense agency sworn to =
defend his=20
life and property, and that, for some empirical reason, the agency can't =
get to=20
A; would it not then be perfectly legitimate for B or his agent to shoot =
C in=20
self-defense? The answer, of course, is yes. The error committed by Mack =
is to=20
concentrate on one person, C, and to worry about what C's moral course =
of action=20
may be, while forgetting about B. On a deeper level, Mack's error =
=E2=80=94 also engaged=20
in by many others, of course =E2=80=94 is to confuse morality and =
rights, that is, to be=20
concerned about what actions of C may or may not be moral while ignoring =
what=20
the rights are of the various parties in the given situation. To put it=20
succinctly, it may well be that in the shield situation, it is moral for =
C to=20
shoot B in order to save his own life; but even though moral, it is also =
murder,=20
and a violation of B's rights. This error stems from Mack's unfortunate =
view=20
that rights as such all disappear in emergency, "lifeboat" =
situations.
Thus, the political philosopher should not be concerned with morality =
per se;=20
he should be concerned with that subset of morality dealing with =
rights.
More specifically, in pondering various situations, real or =
hypothetical, the=20
political philosopher should be solely concerned with the question, =
Where is it=20
legitimate to use force, and by whom? Or, which use of force is a =
criminal invasion of rights, and which a legitimate defense of rights? =
The=20
political philosopher is, or should be, a sort of "Lone Ranger," or a =
surrogate=20
for a Universal Defense Agency, called upon by X and Y to enter into =
each of=20
their defenses in a violent or nonviolent dispute. The Political=20
Philosopher/Universal Defense Agency must ponder, who is using =
aggressive force,=20
and who is defending himself, in this situation? Or rather, whom must I =
defend=20
against whom? In the above situation, he determines that A is an =
aggressor=20
violating the rights of B and C, but that if C decides to shoot B, then =
the=20
Political Philosopher/Universal Defense Agent is duty-bound to defend B =
against=20
C's aggression, even if C's action may be considered moral on another =
level.
It should be noted that no local police force acts on Mackian =
premises; no=20
police agency not considered monstrous, for example, sprays an innocent =
crowd=20
with a machine gun in order to shoot a criminal, or bombs an entire =
block where=20
it knows a criminal is hiding. But, at any rate, even if Mack were right =
on this=20
point, it would not be relevant to our foreign-policy theme, since one =
of the=20
major points of an isolationist policy is precisely that it is the only =
one to=20
minimize and avoid injury to innocent civilians.
We turn from confusion to rant, and dangerous rant at that. In the =
name of=20
"realism," R.J. Rummel pulls one fantastic blooper after another. There =
are so=20
many it is difficult to know where to begin. There is the spectacle of =
an=20
alleged foreign-policy expert claiming that East Germany had a developed =
economy=20
before 1945, or that North Vietnam was less economically developed than =
the=20
South. There is the usual statistical baloney of claiming that Soviet =
military=20
expenditures are higher than ours by using dollar rather than ruble =
comparisons.=20
There is the unusual baloney of claiming that the American nuclear =
arsenal,=20
which can kill most of the population of the Soviet Union in a second =
strike,=20
could only kill four percent of that population. There is the =
breathtakingly=20
casual dismissal of historical causation, Rummel claiming that it =
doesn't=20
matter if the United States were largely responsible for launching =
the Cold=20
War, since we are now threatened by Russia. But if US actions were =
responsible=20
in the first place, then perhaps our actions can end this alleged =
threat.
Worst of all is Rummel's equivocal and misleading use of =
language,=20
which for an alleged libertarian is unforgivable. Bear in mind that if=20
libertarians understand anything, it is the conceptual distinction =
between an=20
initiation of aggressive violence, and the use of propaganda or =
persuasion. Then=20
let us turn to R.J. Rummel:
Clearly were we attacked by Soviet military forces our government =
would=20
have to be given more power to counter this threat and defend the =
freedoms we=20
do have. We could not wait for private initiatives: adequate defense =
would=20
require our accepting more centralized State government command and=20
control.
We are precisely in this situation. We are under attack, although =
by all=20
means short of nuclear war. And we are losing.
Now what in the world does this mean? Under attack, by all means =
short of=20
nuclear war, eh? Have you heard of conventional bombers dropping bombs =
recently=20
on San Francisco, Chicago, or New York? Have our ships been attacked by =
Russian=20
planes or battleships? What is this drivel?
Later in his piece, Rummel, perhaps explaining this alleged "war" =
situation,=20
states that the "Soviet elite constantly reiterate their goal of =
defeating=20
capitalism everywhere (which goal they call peaceful coexistence.)" =
Rummel=20
apparently has no inkling of the meaning of the rather charming term =
"peaceful=20
coexistence." It means that the Soviets will refrain from military =
aggression=20
across borders, relying on the supposedly inevitable internal shift to =
Marxist=20
regimes within each of the other countries =E2=80=94 i.e., relying on =
propaganda rather=20
than interstate military clashes. In short, there is no "war," in any =
sense that=20
the libertarian, indeed, that any rational person, would find =
meaningful.
Let us dwell a bit further on Rummel's obscene willingness to hand =
over still=20
more power to the American state. In addition to the above quotes, he =
writes,=20
"In the short term, we may need to increase the state's power in some =
areas to=20
preserve our ability to move eventually toward the libertarian goal. =
This is=20
seen no better than in foreign policy." Since Rummel likes to dwell on =
Reds=20
under the bed, I might point out that this gibberish was precisely =
Stalin's=20
rationale for maximizing State power in Russia while supposedly on the =
road to=20
the state's "withering away." This is the imbecile dialectic: Yes, of =
course, we=20
want the State to wither away, but that's only in the long run (very =
long); in=20
the meantime, in order to achieve that goal, we have to increase State =
power=20
sharply. Rummel, meet Stalin.
"Libertarianism is not somewhere near=20
conservatism, but its polar opposite and mortal foe."=20
There is more, much more, in Rummel. There is the standard Wilsonian =
nonsense=20
that dictatorships are always aggressive in foreign affairs while =
democracies,=20
or freer countries, are not =E2=80=94 simply not true either way, and an =
example of a=20
priori history at its worst. There is Rummel's horror at the idea of =
the=20
"gradual Finlandization" of the world, which, characteristically, he =
equates=20
with satellization or absorption into the Soviet Union. But what's wrong =
with=20
being a Finland? Indeed, Rummel could profitably study the Finnish case, =
if he=20
should ever come to think that modern history is important. For the =
Russians=20
occupied Finland after it joined Germany in attacking Russia, just as =
the=20
Soviets occupied the rest of Eastern Europe after World War II for the =
same=20
reason. Yet how is it that Russia pulled out of Finland, and left it be, =
while=20
the rest of Eastern Europe became Sovietized? Did the Soviet Devil nod =
when=20
considering Finland? Did diabolism sleep? The actual answer is that, in =
contrast=20
to the other Eastern European countries, Finland, under the direction of =
Julio=20
Paasikivi, was willing to renounce anti-Soviet foreign adventurism loud =
and=20
clear. Given that commitment, the Soviets didn't really care about the =
domestic=20
systems of the various countries. Unfortunately, there was no equivalent =
statesman in Poland, Hungary, et al., to give a similar commitment.
Also, Rummel, a supposed libertarian, comes out not only against =
Western=20
governmental aid to Russia, but also against trade =E2=80=94 presumably =
he is in favor=20
of outlawing such trade, again not realizing that trade benefits =
both=20
parties to an exchange.
And in claiming a total power for terror tactics, in asserting that =
majority=20
support is no longer needed for a state, Rummel fails to explain why it =
is that=20
Batista terror, why South Vietnamese terror, backed up by the murder of =
over a=20
million Vietnamese peasants by American bombers, why that terror failed =
to work.=20
Anyone who understands the principles and history of guerrilla warfare =
knows=20
that the essential condition for guerrilla victory is support by the =
mass of the=20
population; lacking that support, the population informs on the =
guerrillas, and,=20
as in the case of Che Guevara in Bolivia, the battle is swiftly =
over.
The central error in this farrago by Rummel is his repeated assertion =
that=20
statism equals Communism, and that therefore the central confrontation =
of our=20
time is between liberty and Communism. In fact, however, the single most =
important enemy of liberty is mass murder. Communist governments murder =
their=20
citizens, but nuclear warfare would murder far, far more, indeed the =
entire=20
human race itself. And so the greatest enemy of liberty in our time, our =
realistic enemy, if you please, is nuclear war, by whichever =
State=20
launches it. And, empirically, every consideration =E2=80=94 from the =
continuing refusal=20
of the United States to abjure first use of nuclear weapons, to our =
refusal to=20
agree to our own proposal for mutual general and complete disarmament =
(with=20
inspection) after Russia accepted it in 1955, to the chilling fact that =
the=20
United States and only the United States is developing precise =
nuclear=20
missiles that could be used for a first nuclear strike =E2=80=94 leads =
to regarding the=20
US state, rather than the Soviet Union, as the major nuclear threat to =
the life=20
and liberty of the world's population.
There are two essential policies, therefore, for libertarians to push =
upon=20
the American state: a policy of "isolationism," of nonintervention into =
the=20
territory of other states; and to pressure it into genuine negotiations, =
at long=20
last, for mutual nuclear disarmament with inspection. The fact that =
Soviet=20
Russia butchers many of its own citizens is monstrous and important =
but is=20
irrelevant to the question of foreign policy and to the threats to =
human=20
liberty that lie in such policies.
For it is not the function of any state, including the United States, =
to=20
right the sins of the Decalogue, to spread fire and devastation in order =
to=20
bring freedom around the globe =E2=80=94 as we murdered countless =
Vietnamese in the name=20
of their "freedom." And, above all, we must realize that nuclear war is =
a far=20
bigger threat to liberty than Communism. How's that for =
libertarian=20
"realism"?
In short, libertarians must realize that just as, for them, liberty =
must be=20
the highest political end, in the same way, peace and the =
avoidance of=20
mass murder must be the highest end of foreign policy.
We may hope that this issue of Reason does not prove a =
harbinger of=20
its future course. Reason has long had an unfortunate tendency to =
define=20
the scope of libertarianism so broadly and so fuzzily as to leave it =
drifting in=20
a zone somewhere between libertarianism and conservatism. Yet, as the =
case of=20
foreign policy demonstrates so well, in issue after vital issue, =
libertarianism=20
is not somewhere near conservatism, but its polar opposite and mortal =
foe. It is=20
high time for libertarians to sharpen their knowledge of the critical =
gulf=20
between themselves and conservatism.
Murray N. Rothbard (1926=E2=80=931995) was dean of the Austrian =
School. He was an=20
economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. =
See Murray=20
N. Rothbard's article =
archives.
Comment=20
on the blog.
You can subscribe to future articles by Murray N. Rothbard via this =
RSS=20
feed.
Notes
[1] =
With seeming=20
neutrality in the debate, Reason's editors offer a list of books =
on=20
foreign policy to interested readers. Yet every one of the =
recommendations is=20
right-wing and interventionist, ranging from Rummel himself to the =
American=20
Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution. There's "both sides" =
with a=20
vengeance.
![3DQuantcast=20](3D"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-0doBZ-DZtouuw.gif")