A fellow Austrian and myself have been discussing 'what if' the international situation gets consistently worse and the 21st Century becomes another century of Socialism.
I've been thinking that the only approach would be to take a large group of Libertarians, probably with the help of a Private Military Contractor, and take over a failing state (probably an African one) with pre-existing infrastructure.
Now the question is; could or would this be considered by other Austrians as Colonialism or Imperialism? The obvious answer apears to be yes, tbh, but if it becomes impossible to recreate Libertarianism in the United States or Classical Liberalism in say, Great Britain, would it be justified to create a Libertarian state via the means I have suggested?
This is not the free state project; it is an invasion by outside forces to liberate a country, just abnormally. The question really is if it could ever be justified?
The initation of force is never justified according to my ethical system. I suspect most people around here would agree.
I don't disagree but if the entire world is Socialist is there no alternative?
It would be colonialism in the best sense of the word, taking failed or primitive societies and transforming them into working societies.
In fact there's no reason why you have to wait for another century of socialism to do that. You can start doing business in Africa right away. The Chinese are already doing it.
nje5019: The initation of force is never justified according to my ethical system. I suspect most people around here would agree.
Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
It's an interesting question. I think however that it wouldn't make sense to conquer a state if anarchy is the desired outcome.
Otherwise, you're basically defending the (overt) rationale for the American Empire and it's quest to bring Democracy to the world.
Now if people bought up a lot of land, and brought in private military to defend that land (I'm talking 1000's of acres), that would be ok.
In reality, the only way to defeat the socialist state is education.
Good point.
Stranger:Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.
how about I add the caveat 'except for purposes of self defense.' In that case one might have to act to defend himself from people who have no law?
nje5019: Stranger:Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified. how about I add the caveat 'except for purposes of self defense.' In that case one might have to act to defend himself from people who have no law?
Was it self-defense for the Spanish to conquer and colonize the Aztec empire?
Of course not. How is this relevant?
Edit: Oh, i see. Because they have no law? When i said that i was still engaged in the OP's thought experiment about the whole world being socialist or whatever.
liberty student:Otherwise, you're basically defending the (overt) rationale for the American Empire and it's quest to bring Democracy to the world.
There's nothing wrong with the empire's expansionism, what's wrong is that it attempts to impose unnatural laws on the people it adds to the empire. Those unnatural laws create social chaos.
liberty student: In reality, the only way to defeat the socialist state is education.
That is the worst delusion we could possibly suffer from. Russian socialism went on for decades after everyone knew it didn't work. The only way to defeat socialism is action.
nje5019: Of course not. How is this relevant?
We're talking about the benefits of colonization. Why was it wrong for the Spanish to conquer and colonize the Aztec Empire?
If an invading force provides a people with a greater degree of freedom than their previous government had, what exactly is the contention?
The people of North Borneo were free-er under the white people than they were under their own leader, the Sultan of Brunei, whose domain at that time was legally recognised as most all of Borneo. He imposed arbitrary taxes (although, according to my father, paid a heavy price for trying it), disregarded the rule of law, and was generally a tyrant. The British administration was the reverse.
Isn't it the value of a Government - if one must exist - that determines whether its rise to power is rightful, not who runs the Government or how it came to rule? I would much rather be ruled by an American libertarian who annexes Britain than a European socialist who rules it 'democratically.'
Didn't Mises always say that it ought to be the ends, not the means, that are examined?
Stranger: Why was it wrong for the Spanish to conquer and colonize the Aztec Empire?
Because it was an iniation of force by the spanish?
Asian Austrian: If an invading force provides a people with a greater degree of freedom than their previous government had, what exactly is the contention?
I think this depends largely on the context. Are the people of the region asking for help? What kind of invasion are we talking about? A violent military invasion that kills off the government and says "okay we're going to have a libertarian one now people!"?
Asian Austrian:Isn't it the value of a Government - if one must exist - that determines whether its rise to power is rightful, not who runs the Government or how it came to rule?
Monopolized law and defense and institutionalized theft and coercion is not something i see value in.
Asian Austrian:Didn't Mises always say that it ought to be the ends, not the means, that are examined?
I can't say I've ever read that, can you find a quote?
nje5019:Because it was an iniation of force by the spanish?
Are you sure the Spanish shot first?
nje5019:I think this depends largely on the context. Are the people of the region asking for help? What kind of invasion are we talking about? A violent military invasion that kills off the government and says "okay we're going to have a libertarian one now people!"?
nje5019:Monopolized law and defense and institutionalized theft and coercion is not something i see value in.
b. Does that mean that the Government of Switzerland is equally as bad as the Government of North Korea?
nje501:I can't say I've ever read that, can you find a quote?
Stranger: nje5019:Because it was an iniation of force by the spanish? Are you sure the Spanish shot first?
You're right, no, I'm not. I thought it was a safe assumption to make, considering they were enroaching on the Aztecs' territory. What exactly are you arguing here? That invading and colonizing uncivilized cultures is okay?
Stranger:There's nothing wrong with the empire's expansionism, what's wrong is that it attempts to impose unnatural laws on the people it adds to the empire. Those unnatural laws create social chaos.
Except that an empire by definition is a state.
Stranger:That is the worst delusion we could possibly suffer from. Russian socialism went on for decades after everyone knew it didn't work. The only way to defeat socialism is action.
I thought so to. But our numbers are puny. Remember, you're one of the "we're being coerced, so we can't do anything" guys.
There is a lot of educational work that needs to be done. We're headed in the right direction, but now more than ever is the time to push back.
If you have ideas, PM them to me or post them. I want to leave the world freer than I found it, if such a thing is possible.
Asian Austrian: a. Do you think those would exist in the extent you seem to believe in a libertarian country?
Why do you think I 'believe' in a libertarian country? And yes, monopolized law and defense and institutionalized theft and coercion are what makes a government a government. You might have a different definition of a government, in which case we may be arguing semantics.
Asian Austrian:b. Does that mean that the Government of Switzerland is equally as bad as the Government of North Korea?
No. It means that all governments are fundamentally immoral, regardless of their level of respect for human rights and the amount of freedom they allow.
liberty student: If you have ideas, PM them to me or post them. I want to leave the world freer than I found it, if such a thing is possible.
I think this thread had a good idea.
nje5019: You're right, no, I'm not. I thought it was a safe assumption to make, considering they were enroaching on the Aztecs' territory. What exactly are you arguing here? That invading and colonizing uncivilized cultures is okay?
Precisely yes.
Liberty is about respect for property rights. It is wrong to take from someone, but it is not wrong to take from no one in particular.
It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.
I'll take a stab at this and I think that a libertarian expansion would be justifiable but practically difficult. I say that it is justifiable because the whole world would be dominated by socialism or the pillaging of one man by another. But if libertarians kill off paul who is robbing peter, then the worst we can be accused of is vigilantism. Yet a libertarian state cannot be established and it is positively necessary that anarchy be the mode of social organization prevailing in the conquered territory. Indeed if libertarians created a libertarian state it under even these conditions it would negate the NAP. For instance if a steals from b it is alright to kill a assuming a was stealing at gun point. But if c steals from a to aggrandize himself, then this would be unjust and would really be a double theft away from b who should properly have his property restored to him. So if a robs from b then clearly c can justly force a to return property to b. But what if b had in some past time robbed from a? Given our socialist world this is a likely scenario. How would a libertarian state solve this problem? Would the libertarian state then take it upon itself to kill upwards of 90% of the population for supporting statism? At first the answer seems to be yes but when we consider that in a true libertarian society, both the defense of man and the proscription of law, is left in private hands and in the victim's disposal one gets a different answer. The answer is that the victim may, if he chooses, impose the death penalty on the aggressor but this outcome is by no means necessary. So it is quite likely that the libertarian society, absent the libertarian state, will be less than a total blood-bath. Also one must remember that a libertarian state must needs have some tax system which is self-evidently wrong.
To comment on the spanish -clearly even if a forces b to give him funds to fight c who is stealing from d a is in the wrong. No matter what level of tyranny the aztecs lived under it still doesn't justify the pillaging of spaniards to defeat aztecs.
I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions in this thread.
First of all, you don't have to go "conquer a country" in order to establish your libertarian paradise. Just go find a place where the state is weak, buy property, and be productive! This is the moral and ethical way to establish what you are wanting to establish. Now, if anyone aggresses against you in doing that, you would be justified in using force to repel them. Only in proportion to the aggression against you.
Don't go conquering people. Don't go liberating people. If you are their neighbor and you are moral and ethical and productive, you will be able to do more toward liberating them than you ever could with force.
To the person who said initiation of force is permissible against people who have no law: you are dead wrong. Force is only permissible against people who have initiated force against you. Initiation of force is never permissible.
To the person who said initiation of force is permissible in self-defense: you are misunderstanding the terms. Self-defense is not initiation of force. In self-defense, the victim is not initiating force; he is using force against the initiator. Initiating force means you are the guy who started it! If it's self-defense, you didn't start it, by definition.
To the person who said "Didn't Mises always say that it ought to be the ends, not the means, that are examined?" I have no idea if Mises ever said that or not, but the very idea is morally repugnant. The ends justifying the means is nothing more than the very definition of fascism!!
jdavidb2: I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First of all, you don't have to go "conquer a country" in order to establish your libertarian paradise. Just go find a place where the state is weak, buy property, and be productive! This is the moral and ethical way to establish what you are wanting to establish. Now, if anyone aggresses against you in doing that, you would be justified in using force to repel them. Only in proportion to the aggression against you. Don't go conquering people. Don't go liberating people. If you are their neighbor and you are moral and ethical and productive, you will be able to do more toward liberating them than you ever could with force. To the person who said initiation of force is permissible against people who have no law: you are dead wrong. Force is only permissible against people who have initiated force against you. Initiation of force is never permissible. To the person who said initiation of force is permissible in self-defense: you are misunderstanding the terms. Self-defense is not initiation of force. In self-defense, the victim is not initiating force; he is using force against the initiator. Initiating force means you are the guy who started it! If it's self-defense, you didn't start it, by definition. To the person who said "Didn't Mises always say that it ought to be the ends, not the means, that are examined?" I have no idea if Mises ever said that or not, but the very idea is morally repugnant. The ends justifying the means is nothing more than the very definition of fascism!!
Very eloquently put, and thanks for catching my slip-up in terminology. I totally agree.
jdavidb2:First of all, you don't have to go "conquer a country" in order to establish your libertarian paradise. Just go find a place where the state is weak, buy property, and be productive! This is the moral and ethical way to establish what you are wanting to establish. Now, if anyone aggresses against you in doing that, you would be justified in using force to repel them. Only in proportion to the aggression against you.
How are you going to do that in a country where all the land is owned communally or by the state?
There are many people out there who are incapable of self-rule.
You still have no cause for force against them, unless they initiate force against you.
I'm pretty sure I said "go find a place where the state is weak." If the state is strong enough to successfully communally own all the land, then that's not the kind of place I was talking about.
Stranger:Why was it wrong for the Spanish to conquer and colonize the Aztec Empire?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
nje5019: Stranger: nje5019:Because it was an iniation of force by the spanish? Are you sure the Spanish shot first? You're right, no, I'm not. I thought it was a safe assumption to make, considering they were enroaching on the Aztecs' territory. What exactly are you arguing here? That invading and colonizing uncivilized cultures is okay?
Yes, that's precisely what he's defending, and it's irreconcilable with libertarianism. He's essentially using cultural norms as a requirement for the non-aggresion principle to apply to you. "Heathens" who don't have the right philosophy or culture are fair game to have force initiated against them. Nevermind that this is a blatant inconsistancy in the application of rights.
Stranger: ... The only way to defeat socialism is action.
... The only way to defeat socialism is action.
There isn't an only way to defeat socialism, there are multiple hundreds of ways to defeat socialism. Any activity that acts in accordance to the non-aggression axiom, especially those activities that are resistant to violent acts of government, can and will aid in the absolute defeat of socialism or any form of tyranny against the individual and lead ultimately to the victory of Libertarianism.
Thank You - Brandon
jdavidb2: How are you going to do that in a country where all the land is owned communally or by the state? I'm pretty sure I said "go find a place where the state is weak." If the state is strong enough to successfully communally own all the land, then that's not the kind of place I was talking about.
See, you are not understanding the situation of primitive lands. There doesn't need to be a state for land to be communally owned. Communal ownership came before states.
10Brandonr:There isn't an only way to defeat socialism, there are multiple hundreds of ways to defeat socialism.
Yes, keep believing that. We'll have people off sign waving like Ron Paulers, yet those same people won't have registered (R) to vote for Paul in a primary.
Look, is there more than one way? Sure. But we're less than 1% of the world's population, and a good many of us just want drug legalization and the state to stay out of our bedrooms. Not exactly pitchfork and torch, storm the town type folks.
We're going to need to recruit, and to make the case against the state, over and over, individual by individual. When we're 5%or 10%, then we will be able to begin to push back against the state. Right now, we could all be rounded up, dumped in a gulag, and the world would keep on turning. I'm hoping one day, the entrepreneurial class will lead the revolution. But they will need their suppliers, customers and employees/shareholders to be on board.
Now if you know another method, or have another idea, please share. But just saying there are a lot of ways, indicates to me that you (like the many who will read your post) are unsure which is the best one to work on. And time costs liberty, we don't have infinite time to burn.
Stranger: jdavidb2: How are you going to do that in a country where all the land is owned communally or by the state? I'm pretty sure I said "go find a place where the state is weak." If the state is strong enough to successfully communally own all the land, then that's not the kind of place I was talking about. See, you are not understanding the situation of primitive lands. There doesn't need to be a state for land to be communally owned. Communal ownership came before states.
And you seem to be advocating precisely what would entail the formation of a state being imposed from the outside onto a communal anarchy.
Brainpolice: And you seem to be advocating precisely what would entail the formation of a state being imposed from the outside onto a communal anarchy.
You seem to be worth nothing more than expressing your paranoid delusions about other people's intents by wildly misrepresenting their claims, towards no productive end that I can imagine.
Let me remind you that if the Founding Fathers abhorred violence we'd still be under British rule (not that it would matter much in the 21st century, but you know what I mean).
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Asian Austrian: If an invading force provides a people with a greater degree of freedom than their previous government had, what exactly is the contention? The people of North Borneo were free-er under the white people than they were under their own leader, the Sultan of Brunei, whose domain at that time was legally recognised as most all of Borneo. He imposed arbitrary taxes (although, according to my father, paid a heavy price for trying it), disregarded the rule of law, and was generally a tyrant. The British administration was the reverse. Isn't it the value of a Government - if one must exist - that determines whether its rise to power is rightful, not who runs the Government or how it came to rule? I would much rather be ruled by an American libertarian who annexes Britain than a European socialist who rules it 'democratically.'
There is a thing called government by consent. Now Sultan may have been a tyrant and therefore his rule was illegitimate, but two wrongs do not make a right. It is entirely irrelevant how good or benevolent you perceive that government as an outsider. As long as the ruled themselves never consented to being ruled by it, it is immoral.
And I`m sure the people of North Borneo were never too crazy about the British.
Marko: And I`m sure the people of North Borneo were never too crazy about the British.
Some were and some weren't. You can't generalize about it.
There would be nothing wrong with a group of Austrians muscling out a weak state and providing security in exchange for money, so long as it didn't try to wipe out potential competitors. That is the difference between colonialism and imperialism.
They were crazy enough to fly a Union Jack (and a Star Spangled Banner) during their revolt against the Japanese. I have never met somebody there who was critical of the British regime, yet everywhere you go you see opposition party flags against the Government. There was never any talk of independence during the British era. Now there is significant talk of secession. There is even evidence to show that polls that showed the majority of people wanted independence were rigged.
Incidentally North Borneo was run as a corporation until 1945 by the North Borneo Chartered Company. It did not receive an official colonial Government until 1945-1963.
Is it so impossible for Austrians to believe that colonialism was actually favoured by the people who lived under it in some areas of the world? The Government that tolerates the most liberty to the people is going to be the most favoured Government, regardless of the colour of the skin of its leaders. A Government that tolerates more liberty is more moral than the Government that doesn't; this is not a black and white issue, there are shades involved. No Government can ever truly be moral - but really, how many of Austrian School's key writers promoted Anarcho Capitalism and how many promoted Classical Liberalism? I think there is a healthy balance.
Asian Austrian, you need to understand there are natural rights. But the rights are arranged in hierarcy. Some are more basic, more fundamental than others.
Conquering a people in order to impose a more perfect application of property rights, or free speech rights, or freedom of assembly rights on them is immoral. It is immoral because it is a violation of the rights of the conquered that are even more basic that the rights of free speech, assembly and property. The right of self-determination and self-ownership.
Marko: It is immoral because it is a violation of the rights of the conquered that are even more basic that the rights of free speech, assembly and property. The right of self-determination The right of self-determination and self-ownership.