I have a question for you guys:
I think there is a bit of an inconsistency in the anti-war libertarian movement. First off, if enhanced interrogation led to finding out where Osama was, do you oppose EIT (i.e., torture) in principle or just because the government does it currently and the government is considered to be illegitimate? In other words, in Ancapistan, a legal agency is holding somebody who they believe is an active threat to society, who is without a doubt guilty of killing people, and possibly has information on friends of his that could further damage society. So could they use waterboarding or something like that or do you oppose the government doing it because the way the government uses stolen money to perform waterboarding?
Also, there may be a point to be made regarding war. Do you oppose foreign wars to save people from dictatorships in principle or are you making the point that you don't want to extort people's money and then have that money fund a war? This is kind of a utilitarian/deontological point. As in, do you just oppose the effects of neoconservatism or how neoconservatism is funded? In Ancapistan, would you perhaps donate to a mercenary effort for a PDA to support Tutsis in Rwanada or something? If it's the former, I think that is an inconsistency because somebody like Ron Paul argues that "we" weren't attacked and that "we" should mind our own business, but part of the libertarian philosophy is recognizing that "we" only exist as a statist, arbitrary collection of individuals. In a statist paradigm, I agree with Paul, but in a state of anarchy, I don't see why we can't fund humanitarian war efforts if they are truly humanitarian.
Meh, upon re-reading this, I worded it pretty poorly. I'll see what you guys have to add and clarify later.....
The taxes of it, the fact that they are nonsense terms outside of legal context, and the fact that nobody actually knows what "for the people" means are all probably the same thing.
There is nothing to be for or against when we are pontificating on saving or torturing other people; the question can not be asked or answered, the taxes can be levied though.
If one is rambling on and on about freedom, peace, humanity, or whatever; at best they are just using confused / convienent language to describe material reality, and at worst they are part of the problem. What I think libertarianism does better than most political positions is expose the nonsense of such phrases and ties things to physical reality, actions, and consequence. I think part of the clarity in this is (perhaps even "psychologicaly to a degree), that the type of mass slaughter / torture /etc goes away as it simply, almost by defintion, is not a desired effect of civilization and hence anathemic to the market process.
EDIT
Dividing this into separate parts to deal with the separate issues you bring up....
1. I suppose some form of "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used in an ancap society, especially if they yielded results. Think about it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis: if you torture someone for information, they can sue you for torture, but if you get valuable information regarding a criminal activity you can countersue. So what really matters is (a) the probability that they actually have knowledge of the crime, (b) the severity of the crime that they have knowledge of, and (c) the severity of the crime that they committed beforehand.
2. I think "ancapistan" would be much more "expansionist," if you will, than most free market anarchists like to admit. Once you have an anarchic, or "polylegal," system in place in one territory, what would stop these defense and court agencies from coming into competitions with monopolies that control other territories (in other words, governments)? Of course, this wouldn't be an imperialist type expansionism and it certainly wouldn't involve bombing foreign countries and nation building. It would ultimately rely on the consent of their customers.
Political Atheists Blog
Krazy Kaju, your point #2 is mostly what I'm touching upon. I don't see the negative effects of overseas humanitarian efforts or even "neocon" expansionist, mercenary forces that may try to overthrow a creaky dictatorship if it can secure funds from people who care deeply about freedom. I understand and agree with blowback, but that's in a Statist paradigm.
I've always been a bit uneasy with a hard-line libertarian/statist position that says, "sorry Rwanda, but no funds for you!" While I understand that would be a national position of the government and the individuals left to their own devices could support or withhold support from a humanitarian cause, it's easy to conflate the national foreign policy with suggesting to citizens that they shouldn't help overseas. Hence, this is why somebody like Hannity can be so exasperated when somebody like Ron Paul says he wouldn't use taxpayer money to help Sudan or Kuwait; Paul never says that Hannity couldn't donate to the cause or something to that effect, if these institutions were allowed to arise. The government monopolizes and overspends so much on the military that it's hard to realize that there could, in theory, be other options.
You bring up a good point, IMO. Sean Hannity wants government to enforce morality on people, even though government and his wishes are amoral. And he wants government because he knows that the market would not allow wars like afghanistan and iraq. So he no hybrid between a libertarian and a neocon. Anyone who supports wars like the one in afghanistan cannot be a libertarian, whether they support it through government or the market.
Eric080:I don't see the negative effects of overseas humanitarian efforts or even "neocon" expansionist, mercenary forces that may try to overthrow a creaky dictatorship if it can secure funds from people who care deeply about freedom. I understand and agree with blowback, but that's in a Statist paradigm.
Well I think we're talking about the same thing and agreeing in substance, but using different terms here. For me "neoconservative" is equivalent to "neocolonialist," "nationalist," and "imperialist." So I wouldn't say that "neocon" expansionist efforts would be a mainstay of any anarchic society. What I would say is that once an anarchic society arises, I don't see any reason why the defense firms present in that society would not seek to challenge territorial monopolies in other parts of the globe.