I think I might have come up with a novel realization (yeah, I'm that naive).
I'd appreciate your input on my thoughts on property rigths deterring war:
http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/property-rights-would-make-war-less-likely-t34.html
War is harder to fund without taxation. Rothbard wrote that in (iirc) For A New Liberty. I have to go back to my senior research paper due in 23 hours, so I don't have time to look it up or register for your sweet new forum.
Although, Rothbard probably wrote that often.
Lots of things could make war less likely. Loss of property is one. Ostracism is another. Ultimately, a court order must be enforced. The heavier the penalty for loosing a war, the greater the deterrent (to losing that is...). What is war? It is either a means of theft OR a means to resolve a dispute. If good dispute resolution services are available, war is less likely. If theft is unlikely to be successful, war for that purpose would also be less likely.
QC - right, I know that, I was just trying to come up with another idea.
Do make sure to sign up when you have time!
Crap. I deleted my own post.
No the idea if it was possible to enforce would cause more war just like what happend with the Allies put punative reparations on the Germans after WW1.
The first point is correct that the only way to reduce or eliminate war is through the respect of private property rights. Meaning that if a government respected the private property rights of citizens then it would go to great lengths to avoid having to pay for a war as it could only fund the war through debt, fiat money creation or outright taxation, all of which are property rights violations.
In other words the only way to stop war is to put the cost of the war directory on the people.
But was justice served in a libertarian fashion? Furthermore, did the people of Germany know beforehand that this is what would have happened had they lost? Expectations matter. They were not surrounded by a system that respected property rights, so they would not have taken the result into consideration.
First how can you participate in anything except a defensive war and still uphold the Non-Aggression Principal? If the aggressor wins then the result by definition can not fit any type of Libertarian concept of justice.
Furthermore, most people are defrauded or coerced into supporting aggressive war initially and then regret their stance later. Do you punish them for their mistake? Is that just?
And this is the logical issue there are technical problems as well that I think will make the losers more angry and interested in further war:
1. How do you determine who is the winner and who is the loser?
2. How do you determine who exactly is the aggressor and who is the defender? Or do you make only failed aggressors pay? What about situations that are generations of conflict, do you only consider the last part of the conflict?
3. How do you enforce this rule? What if you are a legislator in the government of Brazil and your trading partner Argentina goes to war with England. Do you put sanctions on Argentina for aggressing and losing thus hurting yourself?