|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| |
|
| * [[Wendy McElroy]] | | * [[Wendy McElroy]] |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Libertarian Just War Theory
| |
| by Wendy McElroy [https://web.archive.org/web/20030211034951/http://www.nonaggression.org/justwar.html]
| |
| As an ideology based upon non-aggression, libertarianism would seem to preclude supporting any violence committed by a State, let alone the mass violence of war. Yet an icon of libertarianism is the American Revolution. Somehow this war is viewed differently, and not merely because the Continental Congress functioned as an unofficial body ( rather than an official State) when it first met in 1774. The Congress quickly became a government during the hostilities. For example, to finance the Continental Army, it issued approximately $226 million dollars in paper money, then (1780) devalued it at the rate of $40 to $1 of specie, giving rise to the saying "not worth a Continental." Nevertheless, libertarians tend to view the American Revolution as a 'just' war.
| |
|
| |
| The idea of a 'just war' is far from a new one. Indeed, in his book War and Conscience, the minister Allen Isbell opens the chapter entitled "The Justifiable War Doctrine" with a question, "When and how may a State legitimately engage in a war? This has been a prime topic of discussion in Christian ethics for sixteen centuries. From this continuing conversation within Christendom, a doctrine of justifiable war has evolved."
| |
|
| |
| Allen lists eight requirements a war must meet to be just: the war must be the last resort; you must fight on the side that has justification; the war must have an adequate cause; it must have a legitimate aim; it must be waged with a proper spirit; it must be waged by a proper authority; the execution of the war must be just; and, it must have the promise of beneficial victory.
| |
|
| |
| What would be the requirements of a libertarian just war?
| |
|
| |
| The question is not an absurd one. After all, libertarianism permits the killing of another if it is an act of reasonable self defense. Nothing in libertarianism precludes the possibility of a collectively exercised right to self defense. Indeed, Ayn Rand believed this was one of the few valid functions of a 'night-watchman' State. As long as every individual in a society agreed to be defended by a State and the State acted against only those individuals who were actual aggressors, e.g. an invading army, on what grounds could a libertarian object?
| |
|
| |
| Of course, this does not describe any war in human history, but it opens the theoretical possibility of a just war.
| |
|
| |
| Answering this question requires a discussion of how libertarianism approaches issues in general. Libertarian theory is means, rather than ends, oriented. That is, it does not aim primarily at producing a particular end such as 'social justice', e.g. the elimination of poverty. Instead, it aims primarily at establishing a particular means or way of social interaction.
| |
|
| |
| This means has been described in various ways, including: anything that is peaceful; individual rights; society by contract; the non-initiation of force.
| |
|
| |
| Whatever results from peaceful behavior is just. Thus, a libertarian just war would have to use the libertarian means of approaching issues. It would have to be declared and conducted in such a manner as not to violate individual rights or the principle "anything that is peaceful".
| |
|
| |
| War is the declaration of hostilities by one State against another by which it commits the people and resources under its jurisdiction to hostilities against the opponent's people and resources. The libertarian war historian Jeffrey Hummel has pointed out an implication of the foregoing definition. In committing its people and resources to hostilities, each state is actually declaring war on three fronts: first, against the other state; second, against the people of the other state; and third, against its own dissenting citizens, should such people refuse to comply with the state's demand for men and resources.
| |
|
| |
| Given the above definitions, the specific requirements of a libertarian 'just war' would include: the war must have a just origin -- that is, it must be in response to aggression; it must be a reasonable response to the level of aggression; it must be declared by a proper authority against a proper enemy; it must be justly conducted -- that is, the rights of innocents cannot be knowingly harmed.
| |
|
| |
| Consider the four requirements in more detail.
| |
|
| |
| The war must have a just origin.
| |
| For libertarians, the violation of individual rights is the only just origin of violence in self defense. It is possible to imagine such a war erupting, at least in theory.
| |
|
| |
| On a practical level, a problem immediately arises. The prerequisites necessary to judge the justness of a war, such as all the pertinent information, are rarely available when the war is declared. Thus, even if a judgment of 'just war' could be rendered, it would be very likely to occur after the fact.
| |
|
| |
| The war must be a reasonable response.
| |
| The level of force used in self defense must be appropriate to the force used by the aggressor, and the goal of the responsive force should be either be protection or restitution. Thus, even a war with just origins would have to have exhausted any lesser levels of force that could have accomplished those goals. It is still possible to imagine such a war.
| |
|
| |
| The war must be declared by a proper authority, and against a proper enemy.
| |
| In libertarianism, the proper authority to exercise a right of self defense against an aggressor is the individual whose rights have been violated, or his/her designated agent. If the State acts only on behalf of individuals who have designated it to do so, it is the proper agent for them. For the sake of speedy argument, let's also assume that the war is declared against a State that is a proper enemy.
| |
|
| |
| What of the other two categories against whom, in Hummel's analysis, the State also declares war -- namely, dissenters within its own territory, and the people within the enemy State? Libertarian theory clearly precludes a State from declaring war against peaceful dissenters. Those citizens who did not wish to participate would have to be left in peace.
| |
|
| |
| Regarding the civilians within the enemy state, it is clearly an act of aggression to bomb or to use any other weapon that does not discriminate between the innocent and the guilty. A just war would have to be conducted in a manner that respected the distinction between civilians and combatants.
| |
|
| |
| The war must be justly conducted -- that is, the rights of innocent individuals can not be knowingly violated.
| |
| The fourth requirement spins off the last point. Invasive strategies, such as bombing cities, could not be deemed just. To justify the knowing infliction of damage and death upon innocent people, it is necessary to step outside the boundaries of libertarian theory.
| |
|
| |
| At this point, some libertarians shift to utilitarianism, by adopting a social consequence argument. If one State is willing to use indiscriminate weaponry, the other must respond in kind or be devastated. This argument may be true. If so, it may be a reason to eschew either war or libertarian theory. Libertarianism is not a philosophy of proper social consequences: it is philosophy organized around the means of non-aggression. The boundaries of libertarian theory are simply not flexible enough to embrace the knowing murder of innocents.
| |
|
| |
| Given the above requirement, a libertarian just war is virtually unimaginable.
| |
