Let's assume that in a given powerful country everyone is libertarian inclined ...Let's also assume our neighbouring state is ethnically cleansing a certain population (e.g the jews) ... what would our government's response be.
People sometimes argue that a voluntary malitia could be setup by our libertarian nation and travel to fight the dictator. But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that?
I'm feeling slightly queezy about the idea of turning a blind eye to it. I'm aware of the standard libertarian arguments - even if some seem weak. But, how do you people get around this problem?
Thanks
Liam Anthony:People sometimes argue that a voluntary malitia could be setup by our libertarian nation and travel to fight the dictator. But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that?
I would. And plenty of decent people would donate their time or money to stop genocide. Many right-wingers support paying taxes to support the military, a efficient private militia would cost them a fraction of that. Maybe companies would pitch in to gain markets.
Also, state-run militaries are more likely to perpetrate genocides than to stop them.
I see solutions on many levels. First, guys form the minority that’s being cleansed in the neighboring country will certainly be willing to donate. As Nero said, many other decent people also would.
Groups could be set up that smuggle people out of the country for a fee. Insurers could just at the opportunity to charge huge premiums for some protection-or-refund policy aimed at the endangered minority. Many more money-making schemes could be envisioned.
So, even if many donation would accrue, I believe it would be the profit and loss system that would provide the bulk of the solution.
People sometimes argue that a voluntary malitia could be setup by our libertarian nation and travel to fight the dictator. But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that? I'm feeling slightly queezy about the idea of turning a blind eye to it. I'm aware of the standard libertarian arguments - even if some seem weak. But, how do you people get around this problem?
Sounds like you just volunteered. Good luck.
A libertarian country wouldn't have immigration laws so the people having genocide committed on them could just leave. This alone is a radical shift from the current world where if you don't like your country you are stuck in it because no other country will allow you in.
However, if this supposed dictator actually fenced in his people there would be a market for escaping that could be tapped. You have a bunch of prisoners who are capable of making money that are willing to trade their future labor in exchange for escape. A business may decide to leverage that and free these people in exchange for contract work (i.e.: 5 years working for company in exchange for them breaking you out of dictator's prison).
I'd just as soon mind my own business. I don't consider myself my brother's keeper.
Ricky James Moore II: I'd just as soon mind my own business. I don't consider myself my brother's keeper.
I don't disagree. However, admitting this is no way to convince people to become libertarian. ;)
I don't think people can be convinced. I'm not an evagelist, either. I don't want to save the world. And if someone can't take the truth, to Hell with them. Frankly, the majority of people are getting exactly what they ask for.
People should be able to build a private army to fight it, as long as they don't force the rest of the population to pay for it as well.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
It's very hard to convince people that having the right intentions isn't enough. There are very few situations in which right and wrong are clear cut. Take Libya, sure Qadaffi is less than a saint but whose to say that the rebels are Boy Scouts? Not to mentiont that charity through coercion is no charity at all. If indiivduals want to donate or go to the place then that's their choice.
Lets take an example, e.g. Libya.
If the western government permitted oil companies working in Libya to protect their stock with private defence contracts, they could defend their stock, workers and (possibly) consumers against tyrannical government intervention.
Micah71381:However, if this supposed dictator actually fenced in his people there would be a market for escaping that could be tapped. You have a bunch of prisoners who are capable of making money that are willing to trade their future labor in exchange for escape. A business may decide to leverage that and free these people in exchange for contract work (i.e.: 5 years working for company in exchange for them breaking you out of dictator's prison).
This is called indentured servitude and virtually amounts to slavery except it is a voluntary choice.
I cannot see why you would actively propose such a fundamentally illiberal concept but it does not matter; in a truly liberal society, labourers would be able to break contracts like indentured servitude freely. The man would perhaps be able to seek financial reparations for breaking the contract. If they were not permitted to break such contracts freely, we would all end up being slaves to rich people.
So this means that businesses would not be able to help the free flow of immigration in this respect (since they cannot buy people into signing themselves up for indentured servitude) but it may be in their interests to promote the free flow of immigration for other purposes, for instance the benefit to local trade and business.
Or, Libya might just continue to suck because the problem is the people who live there; not the people in power. The latter are a symptom of the former.
Ricky James Moore II:Or, Libya might just continue to suck because the problem is the people who live there; not the people in power. The latter are a symptom of the former.
'The people' cannot collectively hold responsibility.
For instance; I do not hold responsibility for the other individuals who voted in favour of the Iraq war.
Yes, but unfortunately culture counts.
Ricky James is partially correct though. What do you think is going to happen if Qadaffi gets overthrown? You think the loyalists are going to sit back and take it? No, it'll be complete civil war for Qadaffi 2.0 against the guy the rebels happen to like.
Look at Iraq. "Yea! We're spreading democracy! All of the former Saddam sympathizers are going to be good little citizens and vote for humane people now that they happened to lose a power struggle. Also, a hodgepodge of different ethnicities will not resort to suicide bombings to gain political control!" Lybia will probably be in similar turmoil for at least a decade.
Let the jews die or at least defend themselves. They probably put themselves in to that position in the first place. No reason to defend them, they would not return the favour towards western society.
Call me what ever names you like. But when my country is attacked or the government starts killing people, i will not be calling on the jews to save me.
'The people' cannot collectively hold responsibility. For instance; I do not hold responsibility for the other individuals who voted in favour of the Iraq war.
No, but the majority of people and their inane psychological aberrations are responsible for anyone paying attention to congress.
You can't make a strong house out of shoddy materials. Whatever you build, if you can get it to stand at all, will soon collapse under its own weight.
Ricky James Moore II:No, but the majority of people and their inane psychological aberrations are responsible for anyone paying attention to congress. You can't make a strong house out of shoddy materials. Whatever you build, if you can get it to stand at all, will soon collapse under its own weight.
In which case ignore me; I thought you meant something else.
Let's also assume our neighbouring state is ethnically cleansing a certain population (e.g the jews) ...
Do you know what ethnic cleansing is?
Ricky James Moore II: Or, Libya might just continue to suck because the problem is the people who live there; not the people in power. The latter are a symptom of the former.
Some are above it, some are below. The median guy is who sets the tune.
I think you mean the modal guy sets the tune, which is pretty much what Ricky is saying.
cporter: I think you mean the modal guy sets the tune, which is pretty much what Ricky is saying.
No, I mean the median guy. The state is not formed by what the majority wants (which would imply the modal guy), but by what no majority can agree to change. I’m sure that not a single human being is or has ever been 100% happy with his government. The trick is in getting the government for which no majority can agree on changes, and that implies pleasing the median guy, not the modal guy.
Jack Roberts:Let the jews die or at least defend themselves. They probably put themselves in to that position in the first place. No reason to defend them, they would not return the favour towards western society. Call me what ever names you like. But when my country is attacked or the government starts killing people, i will not be calling on the jews to save me.
Isn't the perfect world for foreign dictatorship and annexations a libertarian world.
I only have to acquire that power in my land and then go onto the attack one-by-one ... and you'll do shit as I am invading one-after-the-other, until I own your country and you're my serf. Or die.
Liam Anthony:But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that?
The people who'd feel queezy about doing nothing, i.e.
Liam Anthony:I'm feeling slightly queezy about the idea of turning a blind eye to it.
Queezy enough to force your non-queezy fellows to fight your fight with their own blood and treasure?
It's not complicated: If a lot of people felt queezy about something, there'd be enough of them willing to do something about it voluntarily. If not many people felt queezy about it, then you should feel queezy about forcing them into acting against their preference.
Eventually you get too big and don't have enough loyal followers to keep rebellion from spreading.
z1235: Liam Anthony:But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that? The people who'd feel queezy about doing nothing, i.e.
Oh, yes raising enough money to fund an army on short-notice ... I work part-time on Saturdays for a charity and that is a struggle!
I think this sounds too abstract to be taken seriously in reality around us.
That is partly my frustration with libertarianism. It doesn’t address reality around us – here and now.
z1235: Liam Anthony:I'm feeling slightly queezy about the idea of turning a blind eye to it. Queezy enough to force your non-queezy fellows to fight your fight with their own blood and treasure? It's not complicated: If a lot of people felt queezy about something, there'd be enough of them willing to do something about it voluntarily. If not many people felt queezy about it, then you should feel queezy about forcing them into acting against their preference.
I didn’t say anything about military conscription. As long as people voluntarily sign-up to the military …
Short notice? Why does it have to be on short notice? Do you know what ethnic cleansing is?
You are not asking enough questions. If the state does something with a mind to help the economy, is this enough to believe that it will indeed help the economy? Libertarians will tell you it is not, that to determine this you must examine the actual effects of intervention in the economy. Why should intervening in foreign conflicts be any different? What effect will an intervention by our state have on the conflict? What are some of the dangers involved?
Let's assume that in a given powerful country everyone is libertarian inclined ...Let's also assume our neighbouring state is ethnically cleansing a certain population (e.g the jews) ... what would our government's response be. People sometimes argue that a voluntary malitia could be setup by our libertarian nation and travel to fight the dictator. But who is going to spend lots and lots of money - buying weapons and such like - to do that?
Is it "minarchy" (a self-contradiction, but still...) or anarchy? In anarchy, there wouldn't be any "government" to get involved. The various private defense agencies wouldn't be funded by taxes; they could get money donated by their clients to pay for it (people donate money after earthquakes and hurricanes, etc.; why do you think they wouldn't here?), and/or the people being ethnically cleansed in the neighboring state could become their clients (there's no reason they should pay attention to "state" borders) -- and they already have the weapons and personnel.
What "loyalists"? There are like 16 of them, AFAICT.
Liam Anthony:Oh, yes raising enough money to fund an army on short-notice ...
If enough people saw value in funding an army ahead of any imminent need for it (just like you just did), an army would be funded ahead of time. Your premise is that your moral and predictive endowments are superior to the ones of most other people.
Liam Anthony:I didn’t say anything about military conscription. As long as people voluntarily sign-up to the military …
I didn't say anything about conscription either. I was talking about others being forced to pay for your pet war against their will.
Your question only brings into account two countries, the libertarian country and the genocidal dictatorship. But in fact there are 195 countries in the world. And of those countries, how many of them have instigated genocide over the past 25 years? And what is genocide exactly? The so-called international community doesn't seem to be able to define it strictly.
Let's assume there are 10 countries instigating genocide at the same time. Will one single, libertarian country possess the means to go after each of them? Obviously not.
The answer is that just by existing, a free society stands as a beacon on a hill, an example to the rest of the world. We don't have to act militarily in every circumstance.
I hold that what is happening in the Middle East right now is an example of how free societies inspire the people of tyrannical societies to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. After all, the United States and other countries didn't do anything directly to spark the mass protests taking place in the middle east. The people in the middle east have been increasingly exposed to western ideology, and the political philosophy of republican liberty, and that has caused them to choose to say collectively in one loud voice, we demand our rights.
Unfortunately, they do this under the banner of democracy, which is not the freedom they think they are fighting for.
That being said, in a libertarian society there is no reason you would have to turn a blind eye to what you may consider genocide. You could, just as you can in America today, campaign and organize people and resources to make some sort of response, whatever response you, and the people involved, thought necessary. Perhaps you would be creative and come up with some ways to pressure the foreign power to step down and hand over control to a less genocidal faction. The particulars of the libertarian response can be as varied as the human imagination, and depend on the particulars of the global circumstances at this hypothetical point in history.
Furthermore, the idea that countries do not involve themselves with every genocidal conflict around the globe is far from uniquely Libertarian. In fact, most countries in the world have taken a non-interventionist stance on genocide when it has occurred in history. For example, out of 194 countries, not a single country has done anything to stop Kim Jong Il from his relentless policy of starvation, amounting to genocide of his own people in over 20 years of famine!
So in summation, while Libertarian Polity may not be an instant cure-all for the evils of the world, it is certainly no worse in its stance against genocide than any and all other forms of government in the world both today and throughout history. The difference is that Libertarian Polity is honest in its approach, while Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal Polities claim to care about genocide and democracy, but fail miserably to back their words with actions. After all, why Libya? Why Iraq? Why not North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Rwanda, China, Malaysia, Myanmar, Congo, and the likes?
Your question only brings into account two countries, the libertarian country and the genocidal dictatorship. But in fact there are 195 countries in the world. And of those countries, how many of them have instigated genocide over the past 25 years? And what is genocide exactly? The so-called international community doesn't seem to be able to define it strictly. Let's assume there are 10 countries instigating genocide at the same time. Will one single, libertarian country possess the means to go after each of them? Obviously not.
This is a good point. At any given point in time numerous states are involved in violations of human rights. Accepting the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is a reciepe for endless war. This is just one of many problems with it.
This is a poor argument that interventionists are only too happy to be subjected to. You are calling out the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists for not launching more wars to improve the human rights situation. Better that you would examine the record of the wars for human rights that they did launch.
I don't see the sense in intervensionism. First of all I just don't want to endanger my life or well being for someone thousands of kilometers away. Second of all what looks genocide to you might seem like defensive action to many people. Human rights are just a western concept. Not everyone is libertarian, and most people in the world actually prefer oppression. So who are we to intervene in their society and their moral values?
I'm not calling out the neo-cons and lib interventionists for not launching more wars, I'm calling them out for putting forth false justifications. The implication I'm attempting to make is that their true motives have nothing to do with violations of human rights, and have everything to do with global diplomacy. America doesn't want Libya because Gaddafi is such a bad guy, we want Libya because it's the right country at the right time under the right circumstances to meet the political needs of the current administration and the overarching quest for world domination on the part of the united states.
In other words, when I ask why not North Korea, Iran, etc, I'm not saying we should go there too, I'm saying that the fact that we don't shows that our motives are not as stated.
Thank you for your explanation. That makes sense.
Liam Anthony:That is partly my frustration with libertarianism. It doesn’t address reality around us – here and now.
It absolutely does. But you have to be willing to deprogram the erroneous things you have been taught.
edit
I know Liam Antony; we debated on another forum rather extensively while I was a socialist. He is a diehard anarcho-capitalist. But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas.
But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas.
What about the legitimate function of tyrants overseas to overthrow the warmongering Western states?
Inability to see things from more than one side of things is indeed a bitch.
Marko:What about the legitimate function of tyrants overseas to overthrow the warmongering Western states? Inability to see things from more than one side of things is indeed a bitch.
I have never been to the US and so do not know what it is like. Britain is not a perfect place but individual rights and civil liberties are respected by the cultural norm. The government's power is, obtrusive, but limited. Our markets are relatively liberalised. Other countries do not enjoy such freedoms. Hence, the question is whether the people wish to instil democracy in which case it is potentially a justified cause of the British state to overthrow the tyrannical state apparatus so people within that society may work to create a new Libertarian society which respects individual rights and civil liberties like Britain. Another situation where it is legitimate for the state to intervene is when one country wrongly initiates war against another smaller or less powerful country.
Or would you prefer western states allowed fundamentally unlibertarian atrocities such as Unit 731 (http://www.toddlertime.com/bobbystringer/unit-731.htm) and the Rape of Nankin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_massacre) to happen in the name of black and white non-interventionism?