Private army taking out a dictatorship and freeing people

First, this video. (Sorry, couldn't embed.)

 

Now the question:

I know that a lot of libertarians are against US involvement in WWII. As well as in any war, in which the purpose (or one of the purposes) may have been to liberate its people. I want to separate (as with Israel) the internal aspect of the problem — i.e., that US government oppresses its own people by forcing them to pay for some war (not to mention drafting them) — from the possible immorality of invading another country in order to "liberate" it.

Imagine an anarcho-capitalist society. In it, exists a number of private armies funded by donations. The (self-advertised) job of these armies is to take out dictators. I.e., army A says: we will take out dictator X. People give it donations. (Also, possibly, oil companies fund it because they want a certain region not to be in hands of a dictator). Once enough money is in, the army invades X's country and takes out his army and himself. Armies can compete with each other for quality of services (efficiency of taking out the dictators, minimization of civilian casualties, expenses, cooperation with other similar armies, etc.).

Question: from libertarian perspective, are army A's actions immoral or illegal?

 

For those of you who think they are, imagine the following two scenarios:

a) A building is taken over is occupied by terrorists. They make demands (which are very difficult to meet), and for every hour they are not met, they shoot one hostage. I am a president of a protection agency, some of whose clients are in the building. I owe it contractually to my clients to protect them. Is it legal/moral for me to attack the building, although they may be some civilian casualties?

b) Same story and question, but I am actually doing it not contractually, but as charity to the hostages.

Question: from libertarian perspective, are army A's actions immoral or illegal?

Nope. I would endorse that. I don't believe in concepts of national sovereignty like some libertarians. There's simply no such thing. This is one area where I diverge from Ron Paul for instance, who has occasionally attacked America's actions on national-sovereignty grounds.

If a government is aggressing against its people, it's not different from A aggressing against B, and anyone can step in to stop that aggression, from a moral perspective.

In practice, that private agency would also need to not aggress against anyone else in the process, and this would be difficult, but doable.

I'd like to see libertarian societies one day sponsor incursions into all sorts of countries to free various oppressed, such as the sex slaves of S.E. Asia, and many African conflicts.

The wealthier a libertarian society, the more it can afford to worry about people besides themselves. Let's worry about getting that wealth libertarian free society in the first place first.

I think that suggestion is patently naive, since the dynamics of military action and changing government by force are quite different then what you are trying to insinuate. 

Who are you talking to, and what do you mean exactly?

To you for example. Take a pick and we can discuss it.

Would it be wrong to, say, kill the head of say NK?

If a libertarian group infiltrated the country or took him out somehow from abroad, no other casualties, that would be ethically good, as we know he's assuredly responsible for many murders and much oppression and is actively doing both still.

Would it be wrong to invade the property of a sex-trafficker to free his slaves? Nah.

The reason modern governments don't assassinate leaders is they don't themselves assassinated in turn, they don't want to legitimize the action of political assassination as political leaders themselves. At least they won't do this openly. Behind the scenes they do it all the time.

A libertarian society wouldn't have "political leaders" and thus no incentive to avoid killing off evil political leaders.

There's no 'changing government' in these scenarios. You could simply keep killing the head dictator until they get the message or are so dug-in they can't effectively oppress anymore. W/e.

I think Torsten is making a point that Marko has made in the past (iirc) - you are not the one who is going to live (or die) with the consequences of your actions, so it is none of your business to send a group to fight a foreign government. This is a separate point from libertarianism and the NAP. In terms of the NAP, I think you are fully correct, Anenome, that if A is holding B hostage, it is not illegal for you to free B from A. What this other argument is saying is that if you invade A's house in order to free B, A might just kill B. So since it is B that might suffer for your interference, it is presumptuous of you to think it is moral for you to interfere. If B really didn't want to be a hostage, then he would fight A himself.

Well, in most cases I would greatly disagree with this assessment. You can't read A's mind. He might kill B regardless of what you do. He might not kill B if you interfere. Who knows? You see A aggressing against B and want to help B. This is perfectly acceptable with libertarianism. However, I do recognize that there may be cases where people don't want the interference. No matter how bad the aggression may be, they may prefer that to the destruction and death of war. And I think that's where this counterargument becomes very effective. While the libertarian army would not destroy civilians' houses and kill and maim them, what about the oppressive state?

To recap: there is no violation of the NAP, so this is perfectly consistent with libertarianism. But it might not always be the wise or moral thing to do because the victims of the state are the ones who must live with the consequences.

Well, ultimately, libertarians might organize mass exoduses and then offer military protection against a regime should it try to interfere.

You'd combine secession with seasteading, and float new land down nearby, escort people off who want to leave. Offer them a new life or w/e.

It would require a lot of capital and work. But I can see it happening.

 

The fact that you can make things worse while trying to help doesn't mean that you should never try to help as a rule.

I mean, that's what the market is for, isn't it?.. to find the correct strategy for dealing with a specific problem.

Imagine if we used such a philosophy in medicine, especially at the early stages of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, etc. Or when helping a battered woman (maybe she will be unable to make it on her own and then find an even worse boyfriend/husband?).

Well, it would be counterproductive if your goal is to reduce tyranny over X people if you just assassinated the head of the country for his tyranny and purges only to make the regime feel threatened, resulting in the next in line stepping into power and locking down the country, murdering anyone he can get his hands on in order to feel confident no one will challenge the party rule any time soon.

But that's not a foregone conclusion. A libertarian army, taking that into account, could organize a campaign to deal with that contingency.

A, by taking credit for the attack so the authorities know where to direct their rage, minimizing whom the ruler will lash out at.

Of course, the ruler could simply hold innocents hostage at that point.

The libertarian society would need American-style military hegemony to pull these things off without resulting in needlesly regime-sponsored-slaughter.

Basically you'd need like satellites with pinpoint laser-strike ability. Then hold the regime hostage, secret communications demanding political freedoms or else their life is forfeit. You begin destroying infrastructure around the power elite, denying them the benefits of tyranny. No fuel storage in that area, deny food shipments, etc. Make life for the elites hell. Lock them down.

Simultaneously you can support resistance groups if there are any, and organize mass exodus for those who want to escape.

But all of this is probably 50 years premature at least. Let's get a libertarian haven going before trying to save the world. One step at a time.

Look, it's true that US have made a mess with Iraq and Vietnam, but look at S. Korea (I was going to say Japan, but that one's not so clear...). Do you think people in S. Korea are not better off because US got involved?

It's true that sometimes, trying to help, you can make things worse. That doesn't mean you should never help. It means you should have a good plan. That can be managed on free market as well, through competition. Army A can be hired by "liberating organization B" that first liberates people from dictators, then provides security and starts doing business with the liberated people to help rebuild the infrastructure. A lot of post-Sadam problems in Iraq seem to have happened precisely because a cynical state like the US liberated it.

Would it be wrong to, say, kill the head of say NK?

The consequences argument has been given, How would this be your business anyway? And what would that change?

This may sound romantically heroic, but what in effect is done by that? 

The reason modern governments don't assassinate leaders is they don't themselves assassinated in turn, they don't want to legitimize the action of political assassination as political leaders themselves. At least they won't do this openly. Behind the scenes they do it all the time.

That's done openly as well. The souvereignity argument has merits to prevent wars. Just assume dictator X get's attacked by libertarians fromt territory Y. That would give dictactor X the pretext to invade territory Y, subsequently doing damage to inhabitants of territory Y that were not in favour of invading the country were dictator X was in charge. 

A libertarian society wouldn't have "political leaders" and thus no incentive to avoid killing off evil political leaders.

Yes, the would-be-arguments are so useful. Now I seriously doubt that anyway. Once you have a libertarian society, there still would be networks to push things in their favor. And these networks would have leaders. A task of a minarchist government would be to hold such networks in check. At the moment these parapolitical networks are lobbying government, because it's useful to them. 

Anenome I believe is right here.

The counter-arguments are mostly practical objections. But at the practical level, most people already given in to even the slightest coercion to avoid getting into a fight, given e.g. todays institutional framework (you shoot the armed burglar and many states will put YOU in jail if he lives; but so what?)

Its ultimately a question of what kind of personality the heads of private security organizations will have, whether they estimate that they can pull it off and get positive advertising by it, and whether they succeed in fact. In principle, of course they can attack existing roaming or camped bandits, which is the class that includes dictatorships. Golden rule. Get what you give. etc.

X doesn't respect property of others but hasn't attacked Y yet. X has attacked Z. Of course, Y won't trust X, and then X is fair target practice from Y's perspective, if they think that they have enough relative concentration of force to get rid of X. In principle, Y wants a free society, and behave peacefully relative to those who also want free society and they do in turn.

X does not want free society, and does not act peacefully but hasn't yet turned their sights on Y. So like the rabbi in the one Coen Brother film said, <<What about X? Who cares!>> Only the opportunity of dealing with X matters at that point.

That's probably how this fictional (from today's perspective) scenario would play out.

There was a discussion of this subject in this thread a while back. I think it's absolutely compatible with libertarian principles, and could be very successful if done right.

Would it be wrong to, say, kill the head of say NK?

If a libertarian group infiltrated the country or took him out somehow from abroad, no other casualties, that would be ethically good, as we know he's assuredly responsible for many murders and much oppression and is actively doing both still.

It would not be wrong if you can get at least one person being repressed by the head of NK endorse your action either before or after the fact.

The question isn't what the head of NK has done, the question is do you have standing. You do not, so it must be lent to you, you must be able to claim you are acting as an agent of someone who does have standing.

The reason modern governments don't assassinate leaders is they don't themselves assassinated in turn, they don't want to legitimize the action of political assassination as political leaders themselves. At least they won't do this openly. Behind the scenes they do it all the time.

That's a strange thing to say, what with all the attempted "decapitation strikes" and trying to blow up Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, then Saddam Hussein again, and Muammar Gaddafi again.

Imagine an anarcho-capitalist society. In it, exists a number of private armies funded by donations. The (self-advertised) job of these armies is to take out dictators. I.e., army A says: we will take out dictator X. People give it donations. (Also, possibly, oil companies fund it because they want a certain region not to be in hands of a dictator). Once enough money is in, the army invades X's country and takes out his army and himself. Armies can compete with each other for quality of services (efficiency of taking out the dictators, minimization of civilian casualties, expenses, cooperation with other similar armies, etc.).

Question: from libertarian perspective, are army A's actions immoral or illegal?

It is formally correct, but it is also the case what you are envisioning is extremely naive and ultimately unworkable. Also the notion it is enough just to "minimize civilian casulties" is idiotic. There must not be a single act of aggression involved, or else we are not talking about what you are trying to claim we are talking about.

I don't think taking drugs is against the NAP, that doesn't mean I think libertarians should be shooting junk.

Well, in most cases I would greatly disagree with this assessment. You can't read A's mind. He might kill B regardless of what you do. He might not kill B if you interfere. Who knows? You see A aggressing against B and want to help B. This is perfectly acceptable with libertarianism. However, I do recognize that there may be cases where people don't want the interference. No matter how bad the aggression may be, they may prefer that to the destruction and death of war. And I think that's where this counterargument becomes very effective. While the libertarian army would not destroy civilians' houses and kill and maim them, what about the oppressive state?

That is far from the full story.

If I come to the US and try to wage a one-man war for the liberation of the American masses from their opressive, TSA-imposing government in the present day is anything good likely to stemm from it? If I take pot shots at the US president and his enforcers will I help move Americans toward a greater TSA-free freedom, or will I cause a patriotic upsurge and find myself battling recently-enlisted misguided Patrick Swayze worshippers who can not envision the life without a government post office with the national flaf flying above it crying "the Wolwerines" as they charge me? Which is the likelier? It may not be against the NAP to mow such people down as they come at me, but it wouldn't be the most culturally sensitive thing to do now, would it?

It is impossible to use force to liberate people who do not wish to be liberated. It is idiotic to turn a blind eye to the very realistic chance that a bunch of gun totting foreigners paradroping in your country with the stated purpose of trying to dismantle your state and shut down such institutions as the national parliament, the national army, the national holidays, the national flag is going to be seen as anyhting else but an invasion to be resisted tooth and nail by the very people whose well-being you are supposedly all about. Not everybody has the same preferences esspecially since not everyone has had much exposure to our ideas.

For example we know from interviews with former slaves carried out in the 1930s that a huge number of them felt nostalgic about their slavery. We also know in the ACW many slaves defended their masters and tried to protect them and their property. So even freeing chattel by force may be far from straightforward and not unlikely to result in physically hurting the very people you're supposedly out to help, much less dismantling a national government.

In fact I've personally spoken to numerous people who are nostalgic for times before the dismantling of Communism. And in fact in some respects I can see their point. Certain things were better back then, even freedom-wise. Now if it happens to be the case you are an invidivual who values more something that was better back then over something that's better now you're going to lament the change to the new system because it is a net loss to you. Now imagine the fall of Communism in East Europe had not happened from within, but from without. Would the outside force which brought such an outcome and forcefully imposed the present system (rather than a state of capitalist anarchy) be actually able to claim it had liberated the peoples of the region? When in fact numerous — perhaps misguided — but ordinary, non-aggressor people felt better, and even freer in the old system, and when in certain limited aspects the level of opression had actually increased? (And in fact if an outside force tried to force the change wouldn't it be the case, it'd be far more likely we'd stil be Commies?)

"It is impossible to use force to liberate people who do not wish to be liberated."

True enough. This is one reason why I think the context of any such action should be initiated by a petition from within the affected country.

What would happen is that a person or group within X country will declare they intend to secede from country X, and seek outside help either to leave the country or to be defended from outside aggressors in their newly created autonomous zone.

Since a free society recognizes the absolute right to secession based on freedom of association, they'd have the property-owners' consent to move into that territory and protect it from all comers, including the government that territory had seceded from.

To do so successfully however would take incredible skill and force of arms. And you'd have to overwhelm the military of an entire country.

It's hard to imagine under what circumstances a free society, or any group in one, would agree to such an impossible protection scenario. It's far more likely that they would move into the region and covertly move people out of the country and then move them to a seastead permanently.

It would be one of the best ways to grow a seastead, by helping people who need to escape an awful situation.

There was a discussion of this subject in this thread a while back. I think it's absolutely compatible with libertarian principles, and could be very successful if done right.

What about the NAP ?

 

Torsten:

What about the NAP ?

I don't see why a private company ousting a State would necessary involve violations of the NAP.

I don't see why a private company ousting a State would necessary involve violations of the NAP.

It most certainly would. Starting with agression against a party, that did in no way aggressed against you.
I guess lots of trespassing will be involved as well. 

 

Torsten:

It most certainly would. Starting with agression against a party, that did in no way aggressed against you.

One might argue that a third party has the right to intervene to stop aggression in progress. For example, if Bob is in the process of beating up Jones, Smith has the right to intervene to stop the beating even without a request from Jones; and, in any case, certainly Smith has the right to intervene at the request of Jones, acting as Jones' agent. Likewise, a private company would have the right to intervene to halt a State's aggression: either on its own initiative, or as the agent of some of the State's victims.

I guess lots of trespassing will be involved as well.

Why do you think so?

I'm not sure its possible to wage a war, as it is conventionaly understood, without violating the NAP.  Minimizing civillian casualties is not enough.  In order to remain true to the NAP you could not kill or destroy the property of even one neutral third party no matter how much "good" you would be doing.  The nation whose people you are trying to liberate would be full of individuals who neither want be freed from their government, join you to fight their government or wish to fight you.  How do you not violate these peoples rights.  How do you dislodge goverment troops from these peoples property?

I also have a bit of a problem the idea of targeted assainations.  Who are we to be judge, jury and executioners.  To me its not enought to simply state that surely the dictator of NK is guilty of crimes that constitute the death penalty.  How do we know?  Because his political enemies say so?  Because he is the head of the North Korean state?  How do we know he is nothing more than a puppet controlled and threatened by an unseen dictator?  Should we put him on trial after the fact? In what court?  Our courts?  Im not sure how they could claim any legitimacy halfway round the world.

Southern:

I'm not sure its possible to wage a war, as it is conventionaly understood, without violating the NAP. Minimizing civillian casualties is not enough.  In order to remain true to the NAP you could not kill or destroy the property of even one neutral third party no matter how much "good" you would be doing.

I agree with you that war in the normal sense of the word is all but impossible within the confines of the NAP: a point I've made many times in discussions about how an an-cap society would defend itself against foreign States. However, there are many shades of war, different intensities, different methods, depending on the nature of the parties concerned, the level of technology, the objectives, etc. I can't say that a private company could definitely oust some existing State within the confines of the NAP, but I think it's possible...you'd really have to get into the details on a case by case basis. Some plans might be workable, others not.

The nation whose people you are trying to liberate would be full of individuals who neither want be freed from their government, join you to fight their government or wish to fight you.  How do you not violate these peoples rights.  How do you dislodge goverment troops from these peoples property?

As long as the State is aggressing against any of the people, i.e. as long as it's still a State, you would justified in using violence against it. And "it" means not only the leaders, but anyone in its service. You wouldn't be violating anyone's rights by using violence against natives who joined up with the government, and you certainly don't need the support of the population in a democratic sense. Even if 99% of the population approves of the government you'd still be justified in removing it on behalf of the 1% who are being victimized - popular aggression is still aggression. As for government troops on the property of its supporters, you couldn't dislodge them I suppose without trespassing. In a situation where a large part of the population is willing to harbor government troops, you'd be out of luck. But there might be scenarios where this is not the case, where the government is pretty well universally reviled. I think you'd find that this is the case in many of the tin pot African dictatorships. Basically, as a rule, this idea of a private company ousting a government is only going to workable (ethically and practically) if the government is fairly unpopular.

I'm not sure its possible to wage a war, as it is conventionaly understood, without violating the NAP.  Minimizing civillian casualties is not enough.  In order to remain true to the NAP you could not kill or destroy the property of even one neutral third party no matter how much "good" you would be doing.  The nation whose people you are trying to liberate would be full of individuals who neither want be freed from their government, join you to fight their government or wish to fight you.  How do you not violate these peoples rights.  How do you dislodge goverment troops from these peoples property?

I also have a bit of a problem the idea of targeted assainations.  Who are we to be judge, jury and executioners.  To me its not enought to simply state that surely the dictator of NK is guilty of crimes that constitute the death penalty.  How do we know?  Because his political enemies say so?  Because he is the head of the North Korean state?  How do we know he is nothing more than a puppet controlled and threatened by an unseen dictator?  Should we put him on trial after the fact? In what court?  Our courts?  Im not sure how they could claim any legitimacy halfway round the world.

Worthwile points, but note you are talking about different things in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In paragraph 1 you are talking about dislodging and in paragraph 2 you are talking about punishing.

One might argue that a third party has the right to intervene to stop aggression in progress.

Sure, but that also got his limits. 

 

I guess lots of trespassing will be involved as well.

Why do you think so?

To take out the dictator efficiently your privat army would have to pass through lot's of land without owners consent for example. 

 

You wouldn't be violating anyone's rights by using violence against natives who joined up with the government

Even this is murky.  But this goes back to what you said before about the details in how the war was waged and how exactly these native who join up with the government are employed. 

It is just a very dangerous course to take when you begin to justify initiating aggression against an entity who has not harmed you in any way.  It’s difficult enough when you keep it on an individual level.  To expand the concept to a national level increases the complexity many times over.

My default position would be to not to go out looking for monsters to slay.  War is the domain of the state.  Our domain is peaceful trade.  Essentially, using force to overthrow governments is playing their game.  I think that change could be achieved much more efficiently by simply establishing a close trading relationship.

But with that said you are right, anything is possible.

Worthwile points, but note you are talking about different things in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In paragraph 1 you are talking about dislodging and in paragraph 2 you are talking about punishing.

I am indeed talking about two different things.  But only because these were presented as two diffrent ways to acheive the same end (removing governments).  It just seems to me that both methods have some real problems when you try to square them with the NAP.

I am indeed talking about two different things.  But only because these were presented as two diffrent ways to acheive the same end (removing governments).  It just seems to me that both methods have some real problems when you try to square them with the NAP.

Yes, but what if you tried justifying targeted assassination by the need to dislodge the head of state in question, rather than to punish them?

You did not concieve the soldiers resisting the private intervention from your paragraph 1. would be fought in order to punish them, instead you thought fighting them was a technical question of dislodging them.

What if you likewise said: head of state X is engaging in rights-violation Y against his subject Z. The only way Z may bring this rights violation to an end, is to give me a ring and task me with assassinating X. Then you are assassinating X, not because you are interested in punishing him, but because you are interested in dislodging him from a position from which he continously aggresses against Z.
 

You wouldn't be violating anyone's rights by using violence against natives who joined up with the government...

True, but it would stil be a very rotten thing to do for my taste.

Also what if your intervention led, not to liberation, but to a state of a bloody civil war between the "natives"? You wouldn't necessarily be liable for any NAP violations, but simply from a point of esthetics that would be extremely shitty. What if it had been the case the super-bloody American Civil War had been sparked by an intervention from abroad, but had otherwise been fully avoidable? And lets say for good measure you had two uncles on each side who both ended up dead? Wouldn't that make you angry with the intervening power?

Yes, but what if you tried justifying targeted assassination by the need to dislodge the head of state in question, rather than to punish them?

You did not concieve the soldiers resisting the private intervention from your paragraph 1. would be fought in order to punish them, instead you thought fighting them was a technical question of dislodging them.

What if you likewise said: head of state X is engaging in rights-violation Y against his subject Z. The only way Z may bring this rights violation to an end, is to give me a ring and task me with assassinating X. Then you are assassinating X, not because you are interested in punishing him, but because you are interested in dislodging him from a position from which he continously aggresses against Z.

Well let me back up a little bit and maybe clarify my objections.  When I raised the objections it was in the context of removing an oppressive government.  My problem with using the military to remove a government was a practical one of actually executing a war of liberation without collateral damage to innocent third parties.  The problem here is unjustly killing people.  Here I think we agree this is a real problem.

The idea of assaination was floated, as I understood, as "cutting off the head and the body will die and if a new head grows back cut it off too".  My problem with assination is the same.  Is it justifiable to kill an agent of the state.  Maybe, Maybe not.  Is simply being an agent at any level of the state justify being killed or do you have to be at a certain level within the state.  How do we know if it is just to take your life?  Certainly, a simple accusation by your killer as deserving death is not enough.  I would think the only way to establish if the killing was just is by trial.

My concerns in both cases are unjust killings.  Intervening, uninvited, in a conflict between individuals that does not concern you is difficult enough.  To broaden the scope and begin talking about a group of people intervening in a conflict between two other groups of people becomes virtually impossible.  It also seems to move away from the idea of individual rights.

Maybe there are other ways to undermine and destroy an oppressive foreign state peacefully.