A Very Common Libertarian Argument

[argive99]

Hello everybody, this is my first serious post. I have read the boards for a while and while Libertarian politics are often discussed, I have a question pertaining to core arguments of their foreign policy.

I have been debating with a Libertarian elsewhere on the net and I have asked his permission to reprint here his basic foreign policy arguments. His is a very good summary of similar arguments that I find from a wide cross section of Libertarians and even some who call themseles Objectivists (although they usually use the term "Randian" or "Rand-Inspired" which is a tip-off). Such "Objectivists" would include Chris Sciabarra and Arthur Silbur for example.

My purpose in reprinting his argument here is twofold: to get some good ideas on how to answer such arguments in the future and also to gain a better grasp of what would constitue a rational foreign policy myself. I must say in advance that I feel that there are grains of truth in many of the assertions that these libertarians make, but that when taken as a total, they are sorely lacking in context. You have probable heard many of these arguments before: domestic statism leads to international statism or as they put it the "welfare/warfare" dynamic, the military-industrial complex as crony capitalism profiteering from foreign wars, trade as the solution to the problems of the Middle East, Middle Easterners don't really hate America and her freedoms but just resent our intervention in their part of the world, Militant Islam while bad is not the sole reason for the growth of modern terrorism but again US involvement in the region proping up dictator after dictator, orthodox Objectivist "nuke-em-all" foreign policy as "Strangelovian," etc., etc..

You have heard these arguments before I am sure. As I said, I feel there is some legitimacy at the root of many of these (there probable is a degree of crony capitalism in the military contracting industry, the welfare mentality has been expanded internationaly, US involvement has been unprincipled and self-destructive, etc..) But I can't as yet really answer these objections with any sort of impact argument. That is why I am posting here.

Below are two posts from another forum putting forth the Libertarian perspective. I know its not easy on the stomach to read through alot of this but lets see what we can come up with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Argive I don't understand how you can claim to be pro-free market then support the inherently socialist statist military imperialism. Has it ever occured to you that our military operations is just one, a sizeable one at that, of state-run socialist industries falling completely outside the reign of the free market. Like any other state-run industry the military-industrial complex requires ourselves to bond ourselves into slavery, through an income tax (which yes is a form of slavery, because a certain amount of your work is forcibly directed towards the government), and possibly even direct slavery itself, conscription.

Further more the precense of a large military does nothing more but siphon precious rescources away from a productive free market (that steel, equipment and labor could be going into private industries instead of air force battalions). One of the main reasons that Japan was able to grow so quickly post World War II was because they had no military draining otherwise productive resources.

Its paradoxial and foolish to assume that we can have a strong interventionist government abroad, but a weak limited one at home. Intervention in foreign affairs inevitably leads to intervention in domestic affairs. The warfare state is inherently tied to the welfare state, and vice versa. Think of the periods of the greatest expansion in our federal governments power, the War of 1812, Lincoln's administration, Wilson's administration during WWI, Roosevelt during WWII, LBJ during Vietnam, and currently our government's massive expansion fueled concurrently with Bush's War on Terrorism.

If you're really worried about Islamist fanatics the solution isn't to bomb them, its to trade with them. Trade brings the rule of law, free markets, democratic power, and global ideas, all of which weaken the local monopolies of the religious leaders. Unending war does nothing more than create a permantent nation of enemies. Look at our success at reforming nations through war and intervention: Grenada, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Sudan, Yugoslavia, etc. None to impressive, now look at what we've done with nations that we've reformed by integrating into the global economy: China, India, Mauritius, Indonesia, Chile, Estonia, Poland, etc. The point is intevention usually turns into a disaster, but trade brings real results, gradual, but at least consistent and real. There's no way that we could have intervened in China in '74 and converted it from Maoism to the very staunch free market it is now, but our trade ties with it caused it to liberalize. For direct proof just look at Vietnam. We've done more to make Vietnam capitalist in the past 8 years through free trade than our entire effort in the Vietnam War.

2) Well you guessed my political allegiance with remarkable alaclarity. I'm guessing you're an Objectivist, the militant kind that serves as an apologetic for the West's history of imperialism. You claim to see a culture clash, but I don't necessaryily think thats so. Yes much of the Middle Eastern world eschews Western principles of freedom. But I do not hold the same belief as you that there is no such thing as a moderate form of Islam, i.e. one compatible with Western secularism. One needs only look at Malaysia as prime example of how Islam can create a peaceful, proseprous, democratic and free nation integrated into the global economy. Many of these "cultures of death" were preserving the cumulative mathematical, philosophical and political knowledge while our "cultures of life" was in the dark ages. over 75% of the Arab world respects American democracy and freedom according to most polls.

The tired old line "they hate us because of our freedoms" is simply ridiculous. We were free one hundred years ago and we had no Arab terrorism, hell even fifty years ago we were free without any terrorists. No they hate us because we've stationed troops in their holy land, propped up oppressive dictators (like Saddam, the Shah of Iran, and the house of Saud), have consistently fueled and funded Israel's imperial ambitions, and not least of all killed thousands, maybe millions, through our two unjustified wars and the ten year period of sanctions on Iraq. America provoked this conflict. If we would have just stayed out of other nation's affairs we would not have the problem we do. Other nations our freer and more prosperous than us, but you don't see any terrorist attacks in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Liechenstein, Hong Kong, or Japan.

Yes I am for liberty and free trade, but your accusation that I have no ideological grounding is moot. My ideological grounding is that the role of politics has no role to play in people's choosen ideology. I am at my core an existentialist, I believe you give your own life meaning. I support liberty and free trade because it gives the people the ability to let them choose their own way to live their life. You attacking me by saying I have no philosophy in my politics is like a socialist economist attacking a laissez-faire one by saying he has no specific plan for industrial production. My ideology is that people must ultimately choose their own ideology. My ideology is don't interfere in my life, I won't interfere in yours. At least my political philosophy is not so vain, superficial, and hollow as to claim that I know the single correct personal philosophy to satisfy and give meaning to millions of different, unique individuals.

I agree with your domestic policy, but your foreign policty is inherently Strangelovian and would surely result in the destruction of our own nation. The main point is the whole nuking of the capital city thing. First off you claim to support the culture of life, but then your strategy is to go about killing millions of people who have no connection to the first criminal besides the same nationality. Imagine the barbarism we'd have in the US if the policy of New York was to bomb Chicago every time a murder was committed in New York by somebody from Chicago. Trust me bombing people's homes don't make them want to kill you less. That's just ridiculous thinking. Increased cruelty on the part of an occupying power have never in history made the occupied people easier to control. For proof just look at our own American Revolution. Even if you say this sends a clear warning, and even if this convinces the rational majority to cease support of terrorism, terrorism comes from the small minority making up the most disenfranchised portion of the population. Bombing captiol cities may scare most people in that nation, but terrorism operations require only a few people, maybe even just one. You start boming cities in the middle east, do you think it will result in more or less young men willing to strap bombs to their chests

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've read through all that you can see there is a ton of garbage such as his explicit endorsement of existentialism, etc.. But there are some legitimate facts thrown in there that make me pause. I don't want to be concrete bound, but I also dont want to focus exclusively focus on the forest and miss some of the trees.

Anyway, hope you were able to wade through it.

Thanks in advance.

PS Notice how he refers to me as a "militant Objectivist" and an "Imperialist."

Gotta love these libertarians.

[RadCap]

What 'legitimate facts' have been 'thrown in' which cause you confusion?

[Bearster]

Its paradoxial and foolish to assume that we can have a strong interventionist government abroad, but a weak limited one at home.

This is one tip-off. Why would we want a weak government at home? Only an anarchist would value weakness in his government. Limited is something quite else.

[AisA]

Since man possess volition, the ultimate cause of terrorism is the terrorist who decides to commit murder. Any attempt to switch the blame to anything else amounts to an apology for that murder -- and a promise to offer pardons for future murders.

The proposal that we respond to those that initiate force by offering to trade with them confesses a total ignorance of what we are dealing with. bin Laden, in a speech from an Afghan cave right after our invasion, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" – that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. There wasn't much "US meddling" going on back then. His list of countries to be attacked included Canada, surely one of the most passive nations regarding international activities.

Still more revealing: Islamic terrorists bombed a French oil tanker, then stated in a press release "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." No mention of "US interventionism".

And there was the horrific bombing of the British consul in muslim Turkey (who by the way refused to cooperate with our invasion of Iraq). And of course the murderous attack in Bali, in muslim Indonesia, an attack that targeted Australians, I believe. Hard to fathom how either of these could be a reaction to US support of middle east dictators..

The pattern that I see is a hatred of anything Western in nature and an intent to kill every infidel on the planet -- infidel being defined as anyone not wishing to live under 5th century conditions of fanatical Islamic rule like the Taliban.

The reason why there was less terrorism 50 years ago is that the terrorists didn't have access to oil money to finance their operations -- and they never would have gotten that access if the US had responded to the nationalization of American Oil company property in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

And by the way, the last time I was in "peaceful" Malaysia, there was a prominent man on trial for the crime of being alone in a room with a married woman. If convicted, he was facing life in prison. In another case, a woman was on trial for violating the rule that prohibits a new mother from leaving her home for four months after giving birth. Any libertarian who thinks Malaysia is a proper society doesn't care much about liberty.

[AutoJC]

Argive99, I sympathize with your plight with so-called "libertarians" on other message boards. A glaring example of such a board is MacAddict's "Ministry of FreeThought".

Given the history of America and its many troubled episodes of foreign relations based upon pragmatism, it is not easy to sustain a truly capitalist-oriented argument regarding the "whys and wherefores" of American foreign policy.

I find that when getting into a debate I make every effort to do some research on each issue. One of my most crucial is the one regarding the Arab legitimacy in land claims in the Middle East. This caused me to debate, with success, those who claim that America is fighting in the Middle East for the sake of "big oil".

I then link to sites which I feel have some objective information regarding the history of how it was that Arab states, formed in the 1940's and 50's, were able to "nationalize" the oil wells. I recommend that you do some extensive research on this subject alone, and amaze yourself at what answers you come up with. Armed with such answers, you can then go forward and challenge your debaters with this.

The Internet is the world's most extensive resource!

[argive99]

AisA: Good Post. I thought of some of the things you mentioned but the way you laid it out makes a good argument against America's foreign policy as being the villian. Also, I recall Mark Stein making a similar argument although at the time of reading it I thought it was a minor point. Also, excellent point about Malaysia. It seems that Malaysia is to Islam defenders what Sweeden is to Socialist defenders; a fairytale they use as a smokescreen. Thanks for the insight.

AutoJC: Good idea and one I did think of but got scared off by when I saw the volume of material on it. You're right though, if you are going to argue in this area you need to know the history of the monopoliztion of the M.E. oil fields.

Libertarians are very knowledgeable about this b/c Murray Rothbard wrote about the subject. They often argue that when M.E. tyrants offered American Oilmen legal monopolies, the US oilmen greedily took them; JD Rockefella is apparently a big offender here. They then go on to site this as the "corporate statism" inherent in US foreign policy. Some "Objectivists" will even offer extensive quotations of Ayn Rand (especially from her essay "The New Fascism") comparing current US involvement in the M.E. with US buildup of Russia through its LandLease program. So I hesitated here because I realized that the debate would probably get mired in concretes. But your post makes me realize that that is inevitable. Thanks for the reminder. One always needs to be factually knowledgable as well as philosophically sound.

Bearster: Good catch. I did not see that aspect of it when I read it; namely the importance of the adjective "weak." It is a tip-off. Libertarians (the anachro-captialists anyway as opposed to the "minarchists") don't believe that the gov't should have a legal monopoly on the domestic use of force (they believe in "competing protection agencies") so how could they believe in strong international use of force? You're right, there is a big difference b/w "weak" and "limited."

Although I hesitat to add that there is a grain of truth to their argument in that a government that is domestically controlled can hardly be counted on to deal any differently internationally. Libertarians here will bombard you with "Haliburton horror stories" of overcharging, etc.. They will tell you that Ayn Rand herself pointed out that European history was full of examples of the more controlled country acting as the agressor in military conflicts (ie Nazi Germany). Chris Sciabara and Arthur Silbur make this point all the time in their arguments against the Iraq War. I feel that they are dropping context significantly here but before I go up against them I'd like to have a better grasp of the subject. Any ideas?

RadCap: The 'legitimate facts' or the 'grains of salt' are the countless details that a Libertarian will throw at you. Try arguing with one. For example, the US did prop up the Saudi Royal Family, Saddam, the Afgahnis; they did bail out Arafat, etc.. Monopolies were awarded to US companies that do not operate in a free market. Our intervention in pretty much everywhere has been a disaster. Government expansion has proceeded both domestically and internationally (ie the greatest offender here being Woodrow Wilson), etc, etc.. I readily admit that these are all factual points that need to be placed in context but the Libertarian bombards you with these so fast and so furiously that it can make your head spin. Which is why I sought the help of intellignet people such as yourself. I'd appreciate any thing you can come up with.

Thanks to all

[LucentBrave]

Also, tell him if he doen't want to pay taxes, he does have a choice of moving to another country. There are plenty of brutish countries out there who don't have the proper forces to defend human rights and freedom, because taxes aren't paid. While I agree that our tax dollars are going to things other than freedom and human rights, which is immoral, it's better than communism, where I would be working solely for someone elses profit. Here, at least I get to keep most of what I make.

[andrew]

Also, tell him if he doen't want to pay taxes, he does have a choice of moving to another country. There are plenty of brutish countries out there who don't have the proper forces to defend human rights and freedom, because taxes aren't paid. While I agree that our tax dollars are going to things other than freedom and human rights, which is immoral, it's better than communism, where I would be working solely for someone elses profit. Here, at least I get to keep most of what I make.

LucentBrave, this is off topic but your post implies that taxation is moral as long as the revenue is directed solely to freedom and human rights. Taxation, no matter the use of its revenue, is immoral since it depends on the initiation of force. What you have with taxation is a brute government going around and looting individuals' productivity; looting individuals' minds; looting individuals' lives.

A government, in a free society, is solely concerned with the protection of individual rights. The only functions of a government needed to protect individual rights are the police, the armed forces, and the law courts. Since the police, the armed forces, and the law courts are necessary to the protection of individual rights it is in the self-interest of each citizen in this free society to pay for these services. This means that individuals within the society would voluntarily pay the government for its role in the protection of their individual rights much like people already pay for services they need.

As long as the government sticks to its proper course there would be no need for them to steal to cover their spending since they would have a voluntary trade of value for value. It is our government that has perverted the relationship between a government of a free society and the citizens of that free society moving away from the principle of the government being a servant of the citizens (“a government for the people”). Since it is the government that is in the wrong it is their responsibility to amend their ways, not ours.

[Francis Galton]

You should read Libertarian candidate Harry Brown's latest article on the cause of Islamic attacks: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerrorismReason.htm Good article.

[Capitalism Forever]

You should read Libertarian candidate Harry Brown's latest article on the cause of Islamic attacks

FYI, Francis: We do not like Libertarians on this forum.

Besides, we all know what Harry Browne thinks about the cause of Islamic attacks, and we totally disagree with him.

This is a forum for Objectivists, stundents of Objectivism, and people genuinely interested in Objectivism. If you are neither of the three, and all you do is post ideas opposed to Objectivism, you will not be welcome here.

So, if you are familiar with the basics of Objectivism (you can read them at www.aynrand.org) and are interested in learning more, post the points where you need clarifications or explanations in the form of questions. Do NOT simply state your disagreement--that will get you banned very quickly.

[Francis Galton]

FYI, Francis: We do not like Libertarians on this forum.

Besides, we all know what Harry Browne thinks about the cause of Islamic attacks, and we totally disagree with him.

This is a forum for Objectivists, stundents of Objectivism, and people genuinely interested in Objectivism. If you are neither of the three, and all you do is post ideas opposed to Objectivism, you will not be welcome here.

So, if you are familiar with the basics of Objectivism (you can read them at www.aynrand.org) and are interested in learning more, post the points where you need clarifications or explanations in the form of questions. Do NOT simply state your disagreement--that will get you banned very quickly.

I am an objectivist and will do as you wish.

Regards,

Francis Galton

[Capitalism Forever]

Libertarians here will bombard you with "Haliburton horror stories" of overcharging, etc..

As any true capitalist knows, "overcharging" is not a valid concept. More evidence that Libertarians are not true capitalists.

I readily admit that these are all factual points that need to be placed in context but the Libertarian bombards you with these so fast and so furiously that it can make your head spin.

That's a sure sign of an irrational person. Rather than grasp the principles and remember a couple of facts to name as examples, the irrational argumentator memorizes tomes of (irrelevant and redundant) data and floods you with them in order to overwhelm you. (One more thing Libertarians seem to have in common with Marxists...)

Once you have found out that a person will not listen to rational arguments, it is a waste of time to try to convince them. Since their goal in the argument is to make a specific point and NOT to find out the truth and adjust their views according to it, they will never quit trying to make that point, NO MATTER the truth.

[y_feldblum]

Overcharging is a valid concept, one that applies [only] to monopolies by coercion.

[AutoJC]

You should read Libertarian candidate Harry Brown's latest article on the cause of Islamic attacks: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerrorismReason.htm Good article.

The 9-11 Commission is supposedly focusing on all aspects of the attack  — all aspects except the one that is by      far the most important question: why did the hijackers knowingly give up      their lives to destroy the World Trade Center?

Harry Brown is wrong, of course.

The 9-11 commission will never focus on the key question which is "What is it about the American foreign policy dealing with terrorism that led to all these attacks, including 9-11?"

Proof libertarian arguments are borne of whim.

[AutoJC]

Libertarians are very knowledgeable about this b/c Murray Rothbard wrote about the subject. They often argue that when M.E. tyrants offered American Oilmen legal monopolies, the US oilmen greedily took them; JD Rockefella is apparently a big offender here. They then go on to site this as the "corporate statism" inherent in US foreign policy.

The fallacy of that argument is that these libertarians lay the responsibility for multinational corporate decisions such as this squarely on America. It is a company that made such decision, not the United States.

If it's "corporate statism" they are interested in let them ( or you certainly can) research the hard links of government and some companies in their symbiotic, Galbraithian partnership with each other.

[BlackSabbath]

There seems to be a trend among Libertarians, especially those at the Ludwig Von Mises institute, to hate America in the same way that most hard-leftists do. They certainly promulgate the same fallacies like terrorism being provoked and imperialist foreign policy.

Here is an example:

http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=572

"Hmm, where do I start. First of all, go back and read up the Treaty of Versaille. You'll then know exactly where the Hitlers of the world come from. But this stuff is so elementary that I can't give it justice here. If I were a European, I'd be really pissed at the US for getting involved in WWI. "

I have caused much consternation by suggesting that the rise of Hitler was in fact the fault of the Germans - both German writers like Kant, Hegel and Marx and the Weimar parties like the Nationalist and Socialists who were unable to oppose National Socialism in any coherent fashion.

From the Mises.org site - excellent in it's economics but dire in it's politics - we have:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1123

"The crucial political question concerned the direction the country would take in the future--pushing headlong into the welfare-warfare state or returning to founding principles--just as the country faced this same question in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. In 1948, the key domestic question concerned the uses of federal power for purposes of social planning and redistribution. On the international front, the Marshall Plan had already been passed, shocking many in both parties who had a principled opposition to foreign aid and international management on this scale. And Truman and his advisers were already embroiling the US in a Cold War against Russia, a government that had been a close US ally only a few years earlier. "

Ignoring that Russia was ruled by Stalin!

I think that the best you can do in any situation like this is to name the false premise and leave it that.

For example:

If someone says things which are Marxist, then I tell them so. If they persist, then it is end of conversation.

I debated with a Russian ex-pat a few years ago about healthcare and he said that Russian healthcare was nearly as good as America's and I concluded that the man was a liar and said so.

And so he was. Do not credit your adversary with honesty automatically.

The same guy said that Republican tax cuts in the 80's nearlyt bankrupted America and ignored Congress's enormous spending increases.

I have met a few libertarians who hold the premise that America is the bad guy automatically. This leads them to perform amazing gymnastics like blaming Israel for provoking terrorism and American support for Israel for provoking Al-qaeda.

Some have gone so far as to recommend that America have no allies, not the Israelis or even the British, and so avoid provoking anyone.

The same premise is behind blaming America for Hitler's rise and the also behind your adversary's posts, Argive99.

The best you can do is to name his/her false premise and cease to debate with them if they continue to argue from such a premise.