Foreign Policy and the Existence of The State

[Axiomatic]

This is an introductory tread to give way to discussion on the aforementioned topic. I have been openly challenged by a Libertarian who I have been debating on and off on FB to debate this topic in an open forum. He will make his opening argument tonight and I will respond tomorrow. All other posters are welcome to make contributions. Please note that I have had cordial and civilized discussion with this particular person so I would hope and expect a civil and cordial atmosphere from fellow Objectivists towards him here.

I open the floor to his opening argument on American Foreign Policy and The Existence of The State.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Axiomatic

[Zachary Young]

I am the primary opponent in this debate - or at the least one who it was arranged with. Of course you are all welcome to join in! I enjoy a target rich environment.

Let me begin by quoting Randolph Bourne. "War is the health of the state". It is impossible to reconcile an aggressive foreign policy with an active strategy to limit the size and the scope of the state (ideally down to nothingness ). The issue of war and peace is not a side note in the battle to shrink the size of government, it is the central battleground on which this war is waged, and despite objectivists being right on almost everything else, they are wrong on this critical issue, and this is the achilles heel of your movement.

The central problem with the existance of a state at all is that once you give the authority to an organization to wield a coercive monopoly on violence and decision making there is simply no way to check it's power. This is the history of man. Every tool devised by libertarians of the past, classical liberals, taoists, even the radical 18th century anarchists has been perverted by powerful state forces to serve an opposite end. If we are truly interested in a voluntary society, one organized based upon the free association of a free people, then we must rid ourselves of our involuntary masters - the state, in all it's form, and seek solutions to key problems through voluntary means (in particular the market place). The first step in doing so is ridding ourselves of the cancer that is the military industrial complex and ending for all time adventurism in foreign policy.

Hello, my name is Zachary Young, and it's nice to meet you.

[DavidOdden]

The central problem with the existance of a state at all is that once you give the authority to an organization to wield a coercive monopoly on violence and decision making there is simply no way to check it's power.

This is of course simply false, as is evident from the myriad actual checked uses of the monopoly on force. Suppose you switch the terms of the claim to "there is no way to absolutely guarantee a check on the use of force by the state". Well, true, but more generally, since man is volitional, there is no way to absolutely guarantee anything manmade. So in fact this is no "problem", this is simply a fact just as it is a fact that some people will get sick and die.

If we are truly interested in a voluntary society, one organized based upon the free association of a free people, then we must rid ourselves of our involuntary masters - the state, in all it's form, and seek solutions to key problems through voluntary means (in particular the market place).

With one exception, namely in the use of force. The concept of a "free market" in the use of force is a contradiction in terms. Force is the opposite of freedom. We must carefully contain the use of force, so that it does not enter into the free market. The only way to do that is through a special entity, the state, whose only function is to control the use of force, via objective laws.

[softwareNerd]

... seek solutions to key problems through voluntary means (in particular the market place).

History shows that voluntary contracts will often be perceived to be broken, by one party to them. History also shows that voluntary contracts will actually be broken. History also shows that people will enter into what appear to be voluntary contracts without intending to actually meet their side of the bargain. Libertarians who want to get rid of government think they'll have a voluntary contract with some type of policing company. However, this does not get rid of the basic problem, it simply moves its locus. If we are to believe that those who run governments will soon make us their slaves, it must follow that those who run our policing companies will make us their slaves. it is false that humanity is inevitably faced with this type of Hobbesian world. Nevertheless, even if we assume that this is the world we face, the non-government argument offers no solution.

[Marc K.]

It is impossible to reconcile an aggressive foreign policy with an active strategy to limit the size and the scope of the state [...] [emphasis added]

... And

I think you should be very precise in your usage that I have emphasized because I would tend to agree with the above but you and I probably have different ideas about what is "aggressive".

I will state explicitly that Objectivists don't sanction just any old use of force. Force may be used only in retaliation and only against those that have initiated or threatened its use. But once force has been initiated, you should be as "aggressive" as necessary in retaliation.

[Zachary Young]

"This is of course simply false, as is evident from the myriad actual checked uses of the monopoly on force. "

I.E.?

"With one exception, namely in the use of force. The concept of a "free market" in the use of force is a contradiction in terms. Force is the opposite of freedom. We must carefully contain the use of force, so that it does not enter into the free market. The only way to do that is through a special entity, the state, whose only function is to control the use of force, via objective laws."

I agree that violence (when used aggressively) to is the opposite of freedom - this is my main reason for opposition to the state itself. It's nature is raw (aggresive) violence and coercion. Of course I find it hard to believe that we will ever be free of this stain upon the moral character of man - I am not a utopian idealist, dreaming pie eyed of a perfect tomorrow - we must work within the constraints of what we have to deal with. Man and his nature. My problem is this - once we create this special entity, the state, what is to prevent it from dominating society in the way it has every single time this organization has been erected?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a thousand times...

"Libertarians who want to get rid of government think they'll have a voluntary contract with some type of policing company. "

That's not what I think, sir. I think people with bad credit will get known as such, and no one will deal with them (except perhaps in a gold up front situation). Does the state somehow cause scumbags to make good on their debts? Being a former scumbag myself I know this is not the case! It is true we do not have a solution for the problem of people lying and stealing. Nor do you! But I do not concern myself with this...

"I will state explicitly that Objectivists don't sanction just any old use of force. Force may be used only in retaliation and only against those that have initiated or threatened its use. But once force has been initiated, you should be as "aggressive" as necessary in retaliation"

Let's talk specifics. Iran in 1953 and Iran now. do you sanction violence against these people?

[softwareNerd]

Let's talk specifics. Iran in 1953 and Iran now. do you sanction violence against these people?

The big problem with historical examples is that both sides are seldom without some blame. This is not really a problem when one is thinking through such examples for oneself, because one can sometimes see which side is predominantly in the right. However, they don;t work well in a debate, because supporting either allows one's opponent to paint one as a supporter of the evil aspects of that side.

Instead, it is best to start with the broad principles. For example: in principle, the "people of Iran" never had a legitimate right to any oil-resources that happened to lie underneath their land. Their governments had no right to negotiate ownership with foreign companies and foreign governments. Now, one could counter that those same foreign governments implied such ownership in some cases, in areas they controlled; but, two wrongs don't make a right. The majority of people do not have a right to decide on what form of government they should have, just because they are a majority. therefore, the fact that a government is elected to power does not imply it has a legitimate right to power. Just because a law is voted in by majority, does not imply it is legitimate in a moral sense. These are the types of principles one has to apply to the specifics.

[Zachary Young]

I agree both sides are wrong, and that the nationalization of the oil resources was theft. Does this justify aggression towards them? You are allowed to use violence to protect your property. You are not allowed to kill innocent people in your efforts to reclaim said property. The reason why I use these two examples specifically is that Rand herself justified American aggression in '53 and many objectivists seem to support the (possibly) coming war with Iran.

[DavidOdden]

Millions of governments, on a daily basis, protect the rights of individuals through the controlled use of force. Consult your local police blotter for records on arrests and convictions for assault, murder, theft, fraud.

I agree that violence (when used aggressively) to is the opposite of freedom - this is my main reason for opposition to the state itself. It's nature is raw (aggresive) violence and coercion.

You've misidentified the nature of government. The nature of government is to use force defensively and retributively. It is the rights violators -- thugs and rogue states -- who engage in aggression.

Man and his nature.

Are you saying that initiation of force is man's nature? I've long suspected that this is one of hte basic errors of libertarians.

My problem is this - once we create this special entity, the state, what is to prevent it from dominating society in the way it has every single time this organization has been erected?

The rationality of the members of society. What is to prevent private enforcement squads from enslaving mankind?

Are you a pacifist? Some libertarians claim not to be pacifists, but then they never manage to construct a coherent argument against the government protecting rights. If you're a pacifist and hold as an absolute that you should never use force, then you might be able to maintain a consistent line, a line that leads straight to death. If you're not a pacifist, then you should explain how you believe that a person can morally defend their life against aggression.

[Marc K.]

Let's talk specifics. Iran in 1953 and Iran now. do you sanction violence against these people?

First, a couple of friendly suggestions to facilitate easier communication: reply to different people in different posts; reply by pressing the "reply" button in the lower right of the post you want to reply to, that post is duplicated in quotes complete with citation, edit the quote to focus on the specific point you want to address, do this several times if you want to address multiple points.

I will answer your question and counter with one of my own, though I agree with softwareNerd that in a debate we should focus on a principled evaluation first. To that end I would like you to tell me if you agree with my principled statement that: Force may be used only in retaliation and only against those that have initiated or threatened its use. And that once force has been initiated, you should do whatever is necessary to stop the aggression.

As to Iran 1953: I know very little about it.

As to the Islamic Republic of Iran: its founding revolutionary act was an act of war against the US, it has initiated force against the US, it has killed and murdered American citizens, it has sponsored attacks on us by terrorist proxies, it has threatened to continue this behavior and it is our most dangerous enemy today.

So yes, it is morally imperative that we retaliate against their aggression and I would use some of the harshest means available to force them to end their aggression and destroy their illegitimate government.

My counter question is: was it a good a thing or a bad thing that America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

I would prefer though that we concentrate on a principled evaluation first and deal with its application later.

Really though, I thought we were just helping you define the terms of the debate and that mostly you and Axiomatic would be debating. I don't want to overstep my bounds.

[Axiomatic]

Let me begin by stating that a foreign policy is a policy which is set to defend the a free country from the threat of attack on its free citizens. The size and scope of a state is limited to the functions dealing specifically with force for a precise reason. I will start with an brief analysis of the use of force in a general domestic sense, and then expand its scope.

In the Anarchistic notion of how to deal with force, private contractors paid by private citizens are supposed to the be wielders of force. The problem with this is that there is always a bias towards the person who is paying for the service against those who are on the receiving end of the use of force. Monopolizing the use of force is to remove to element of bias so that Justice can be implemented in an impartial fashion.

The Monopolization of the use of force in foreign policy is for precisely the same reason. Individual private armies cannot be held accountable for their actions and will only protect the interests of private groups. There can be no guarantee under an Anarchistic system of the use of force being restrained by the citizens of the country, as only private interests are taken into account.

The protection of a free nation is of utmost importance as there are many countries who live under differing philosophical systems and are in diametric opposition to freedom and individual rights. A free nation will always be under threat of attack from these states. These states however have no right to exist as they do not respect and enshrine the individual rights and in fact seek to usurp and destroy them and the philosophy that underlies and protects a free states existence.

If a State becomes hostile to a free nation and threatens its existence then there has to be a military to defend against and destroy those threats. In an Anarchistic system, there is nothing to stop say Al Qaeda from setting up a state inside the US and implementing there own Sharia laws, except a private interest who may or may not be partial to the group. If you cannot see the evil in that and how that is a threat to true freedom (that requires a very robust defence) in a fundamental sense, then your idea of freedom is grossly distorted.

The non-aggression principle has been distorted by the Libertarians so as to mean that one can only attack once an attack has been launched by an enemy. This is a fallacy. If an enemy state threatens the existence of a free country, that free nation has a 'moral' right to defend its citizens against that aggression. The only way to do this is to have a military industrial complex run by the state and voluntarily funded by the people.

As to your argument on checks and balances. Voluntary taxation is that check and balance against the abuse of power. If a Government of a free nation acts outside of the confines of its constitution, then the citizens of that nation have a right to remove their monetary sanction. That is the function and the proper idea behind 'voluntary' taxation.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Axiomatic

[AllMenAreIslands]

...It is impossible to reconcile an aggressive foreign policy with an active strategy to limit the size and the scope of the state (ideally down to nothingness ).

Hi Zachary.

I quoted just this opening statement, after your eye-opening quotation re the relationship between war and the state (which I may discuss later.)

What I want to take issue with here is your assertion that the limitation of the state is intended to achieve the ideal of "nothingness." It is not. There must always be the structure of government. The laws, and a means to settle honest disputes between and among men.

Even if there came a day when ALL the peoples of the world could live in harmony and the need for massive armed forces to engage in war activity were reduced to zero, men are not omniscient. The ideal government/state is one that has very little to do, certainly but that does not mean that people would not require the mechanism to deal with honest disputes and disagreements. The justice system is a cornerstone of the ideal government. Having a police force to enforce judgments and orders of the courts is also necessary. Maintaining a "skeleton staff" army/navy is the ideal, on account of there being no need to engage in war.

This is looking very far into the future. Perhaps even hundreds or thousands of years. Since it is not likely to come to pass soon, free countries need armed forces to deal with unfree countries, who are intent on invading or starting wars.

One thing I will say to Axiomatic: I reject the terminology of "voluntary taxation" (or wherever you want to put the quote marks. Taxation means coercive financing. While proper government does have to be paid for, its costs should be shouldered voluntarily by those to whom it matters. Ideally everyone would want to chip in, but one of the best ways to prevent a government from over-stepping the boundaries is by compelling it to raise funds from voluntary contributors for its projects and activities. In that way it must "sell" the project to the populace, convincing them with reason & sound argument as to why they should help pay. When the population is free to choose whether or not to fund a given war, military action, or what-have-you, the likelihood of bad wars is reduced.

[Axiomatic]

One thing I will say to Axiomatic: I reject the terminology of "voluntary taxation" (or wherever you want to put the quote marks. Taxation means coercive financing. While proper government does have to be paid for, its costs should be shouldered voluntarily by those to whom it matters. Ideally everyone would want to chip in, but one of the best ways to prevent a government from over-stepping the boundaries is by compelling it to raise funds from voluntary contributors for its projects and activities. In that way it must "sell" the project to the populace, convincing them with reason & sound argument as to why they should help pay. When the population is free to choose whether or not to fund a given war, military action, or what-have-you, the likelihood of bad wars is reduced.

I reject your idea that a nations people must first be consulted and then pleaded with to raise funds to defend itself. You may not like the word 'taxation' due to what it has implied in the past, but that is precisely why the word 'voluntary' is before it, to denote its lack of coercion. A robust military must sometimes act fast, based on pertinent intelligence, and has no time to 'consult the people' in the defence of a nation. After the action is taken however, the people are free to choose whether to further support the government or not and are also free to hold their government officials accountable to the law if an unlawful decision was indeed made. This is of course, implying that all of these events are taking place under a free society of rational laws and constitution.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Axiomatic

[AllMenAreIslands]

I reject your idea that a nations people must first be consulted and then pleaded with to raise funds to defend itself. You may not like the word 'taxation' due to what it has implied in the past, but that is precisely why the word 'voluntary' is before it, to denote its lack of coercion. A robust military must sometimes act fast, based on pertinent intelligence, and has no time to 'consult the people' in the defence of a nation. After the action is taken however, the people are free to choose whether to further support the government or not and are also free to hold their government officials accountable to the law if an unlawful decision was indeed made. This is of course, implying that all of these events are taking place under a free society of rational laws and constitution.

Hmm. Well, a military is either voluntarily funded or it is not. There should be no need to qualify with quotes or without. In fact, putting the word "voluntary" in quotes is much worse, since it implies that people will be given a choice AND THEN they'll be taxed anyway. If you are going to use the term, at least put the word "taxation" into quotes, so as to signify that it's not a real tax. This is preferable to insinuating that the costs are not really voluntary, which is what you are saying when you put quotes around that word "voluntary."

[Axiomatic]

I will be more careful with my grammar and punctuation in future.

[Zachary Young]

Justice is never impartial. No human is impartial. Bias is ubitquituos. You point to flaws in man, and then blame the system I have proposed, as if yours does not succumb to the same flaws. Man is imperfect. Any socio-political structure will be imperfect. This is not proof against anything, simply a fact.

Private armies is almost a contradiction in terms. It is prohibitively expensive to raise an army. This is why war is almost always accompanied by a debasement of the money supply. While war is the oldest, most profitable racket known to man, it is not profitable for the society that undertakes it, only a few individuals within that society - those in a position to profit.

Security is paramount, I agree. Freedom must be preserved against those who seek to enslave. Your solution is to enslave us all, in the name of freedom, and then hope our masters do not turn on us. I find this hopelessly naive. If it is freedom we want, then we must claim it as our right. We must protect it ourselves, and not trust others to defend it for us.

Yes, there are threats from outside our nation. The best protection against these threats is economic and population growth. On how to achieve this we (I believe) in agreement - a policy of open borders, unchecked birth rates and the separation of state and economics. In this age of nuclear weapons I am not terribly concerned about armies conquering my nation. With weapons of such vast power at our disposal, conventional conquest seems to me to be impossible. What nuclear power has ever faced invasion? Perhaps it has happened once in the modern history of man. I am speaking of Israel. Due to nuclear weapons, conventional armies are anarchronistic.

I have no problem with voluntary taxation (which seems to my understanding to be a contradiction in terms). I have no problem with voluntary government! Allow me to remove my consent, to withdrawal my membership in this organization, and allow any one else to do the same and we do not have a problem. Whatever weird cult you wish to join is no concern of mine!

[AllMenAreIslands]

Impartial = Unbiased, treating or affecting all equally

Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Zachary, I think you may be making an error in your thinking. A judge viewing the facts as presented by both sides isn't going to REMAIN impartial in the sense of continuing to treat both sides equally all the way to the end. It stands to reason that to do so would be grossly unfair. After reviewing the evidence, a judge acting rationally is going to find the facts and decide the issues. He or she will almost always decide in favor of one or other of the parties. A 50-50 split is rare; usually one side or the other has made an error or misinterpreted a contractual provision or just is in the wrong.

A just decision is one that is objectively supported by the evidence.

By what standard do you assert that "man is imperfect?"

War is not profitable to mankind - it is destructive.

Your solution is to enslave us all, in the name of freedom, and then hope our masters do not turn on us.

What do you mean by this????

As for the BEST protection, it is rationality and the embrace of rational self-interest. What must be discarded immediately is the shaky foundation of altruism which serves only those who seek to sacrifice others.

[DavidOdden]

Allow me to remove my consent, to withdrawal my membership in this organization, and allow any one else to do the same and we do not have a problem.

You can renounce your citizenship any time you want. Is your only objection a symbolic one? I.e. do you recognize that you will still have to obey the law, and that you will no longer participate in determining what that law is, and how the government that protects your rights does so?

[Grames]

Yes, there are threats from outside our nation. The best protection against these threats is economic and population growth. On how to achieve this we (I believe) in agreement - a policy of open borders, unchecked birth rates and the separation of state and economics. In this age of nuclear weapons I am not terribly concerned about armies conquering my nation. With weapons of such vast power at our disposal, conventional conquest seems to me to be impossible. What nuclear power has ever faced invasion? Perhaps it has happened once in the modern history of man. I am speaking of Israel. Due to nuclear weapons, conventional armies are anarchronistic.

Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive even now for most states. How do you propose to pay for your nukes?