Geopolitics for Libertarian Dummies

Geopolitics for Libertarian Dummies

©2019  Ross Williams

One of the most consistent criticisms I have about libertarians is their steadfast, pacifist, hypocritical refusal to apply their stated principles to international affairs.  As soon as the subject starts dealing with something farther afield than a zoning board ruling, or a property tax referendum for their local school district and I remind them of what they claim to stand for, they scoop up their children and their pets, lock the doors behind them, and peek furtively through their kitchen curtains until the scary man with the imperialist proclivities goes away.

If I’m what they think an imperialist is, then they’re in for a rude awakening when they emerge from their mother’s basement into the real world to encounter the assholes in any number of other nations.  Assholes who, by and large, without us behaving as I advise us to occasionally behave, would do their damnedest to imperialize as much as they could, to include [if possible] the basements of many libertarian’s mothers.

Not that these libertarians would acknowledge the assholery of certain foreigners, of course.  Many libertarians respond to reality with some combination of wishful thinking and theoretics.  “Well, I don’t like the thing that’s actually happening!  This is how it’s supposed to work, so therefore it does…”.

Yeah… no.  And geopolitics is arguably the biggest academic, intellectual stumbling block for libertarians to trip over.  Just consider how they filter personal interactions versus sovereign interactions through the philosophy of their sainted Non-Aggression Principle.

The libertarian’s Holy NAP states, simply enough: It is never permissible to initiate force; force may only be used in self-defense or the defense of others.  And the phrasing here is critical.  Force may be used.  It is not required to be used.

The Holy NAP is a truly fine, fine principle.  But libertarians commonly abandon it when presented with an international reality in which the principle would be useful.  Many times, they’ll deny that the principle allows for “defense of others”.  This, despite the position many libertarians have taken on abortion, where they advocate the government prohibit it.  “Think of the children!!”  Not to mention the position so very many of them took when Rand Paul was clocked by his neighbor.

Let’s walk through the libertarian geopolitical cognitive dissonance one step at a time. 

Scenario 1: A libertarian is sitting at home minding his own business, and someone breaks down his front door and ransacks the place.  The libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit the libertarian shooting the intruder dead.  If the intruder has cohorts out in the street, the libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit taking the fight to them as well.

Corollary: The libertarian’s nation is sitting at home minding its own business, when someone invades and ransacks the place.  The libertarian will usually, but not always, read the Holy NAP to permit shooting the intruder dead.  I’ve run across an odd libertarian or two who will make excuses for the invader, claiming that the invader was justified in his invasion because of something the libertarian’s nation did.  I’ve run across a significantly larger number of libertarians who will resist taking the fight to the invader’s cohorts and helpers.

For both: witness the collective libertarian responses to 9/11.  Panislamist yahoos in a shoestring paramilitary force under the sovereign protection of Afghanistan invaded the US, knocked down some really tall buildings and just generally made assholes of themselves.  A few libertarians excused this behavior, though most did not.  Many-to-most libertarians, though, denied the right of US sovereign self-defense in taking the fight to the invaders’ cohorts in the accessory nation of Afghanistan.

Scenario 2a: A libertarian is visiting the home of a friend or acquaintance across town when an intruder breaks down the door and attacks the libertarian.  The libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit the libertarian shooting dead the intruder of another’s home.  If the intruder has cohorts out in the street, the libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit taking the fight to them as well.

Corollary: The libertarian’s nation is visiting the nation of an ally or semi-friendly nation half-way around the globe when an invader barges in and attacks the libertarian’s nation.  Most libertarians, in my experience, will make excuses as to why the Holy NAP doesn’t apply, and usually culminating in “We have no business being there in the first place; it’s our fault.”

Witness the collective libertarian responses to the USS Cole and Khobar Towers.  Along with liberals and leftists, libertarians popularly decided that the US being attacked in these places at these times was the fault of the US…  in much the same way as women getting raped while in the wrong part of town was their own fault, or something.

Scenario 2b: A libertarian is on a sidewalk or some other patch of public territory he is permitted to use, even if it’s in a seedy neighborhood.  A mugger jumps out of the shadows and attacks the libertarian. The libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit the libertarian shooting the mugger dead.  If the mugger has cohorts nearby, the libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit taking the fight to them as well.

Corollary: The libertarian’s nation is sailing in International Waters or flying in International Airspace, or some other portion of the planet he is being permitted to use, even if it’s in a seedy part of the globe.  Another nation attacks the military warcraft of the libertarian’s nation.  Almost all libertarians, in my experience, will deny the Holy NAP applies and deny the sovereign right of self-defense, most going so far as to assert that any self-defense action taken is, astoundingly, an unprovoked use of force by the libertarian’s nation.

Witness the overwhelming collective libertarian responses to Iraqi attacks on US fighter jets patrolling the UN-created “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq between 1991 and 2002.  Witness also the common libertarian response to China downing a US spy plane flying in International Airspace off the coast of China in 2001.  Witness further the common libertarian response to Iran commandeering US patrol boats in the Persian Gulf in 2016.

Scenario 3a: A libertarian gets word that an intruder breaks down the door of his friend or acquaintance on the other side of town and attacks those residing in the home.  The libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit the libertarian rushing off to defend his friend or acquaintance, up to and including arming himself and chasing his attackers back to where ever it is they came from.

Corollary:  A libertarian’s nation gets word that a sovereign ally or semi-friendly nation gets attacked by another sovereign nation or a sovereign proxy.  Virtually all libertarians, in my experience, will deny the Holy NAP applies, and claim that any sovereign force used by the libertarian’s nation to defend an attacked nation would constitute a NAP-prohibited “initiation of force”.

Witness virtually every libertarian’s response to Arab State or Arab proxy attacks against Israel, ever.  Witness virtually every libertarian’s response to Iranian hegemonic militarism on the Arabian Peninsula. 

Scenario 3b: A libertarian happens across a random act of street violence against a random stranger.  The libertarian will, with 100% certainty, read the Holy NAP to permit the libertarian taking forceful action against the perpetrator of the street violence in defense of the victim, even though it is a stranger.

Corollary:  A libertarian’s nation happens across a random act of sovereign violence against a random group of dispossessed people singled out for obliteration by their own government.  Virtually all libertarians, in my experience, will deny the Holy NAP applies, and claim that any sovereign force used by the libertarian’s nation to defend the dispossessed people against their sovereign nation marking them for obliteration would constitute a NAP-prohibited “initiation of force”.

Witness virtually every libertarian’s response to Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian treatment of their Kurdish minority populations.  Witness virtually every libertarian’s response to the socialist Venezuelan government’s treatment of their own pet-eating population.  And I’ll stop listing examples here, because to list just those occurring in the last decade would take a dozen pages.

The fact of the matter is, under the premises of liberty, each individual citizen is a cop.  It is the responsibility of the citizen in a society built upon liberty − individually and collectively − to police his own neighborhood.  That doesn’t mean we shoot the pizza delivery guy who steps on our begonias, or that we wage war on Cardinals fans who insult everyone who isn’t a Cardinals fan.  Discretion and wisdom are necessary tools.  Part of discretion and wisdom includes choosing which battles to fight yourself, which to leave to the professionals, and which − in the first place − don’t rise to the level of being fought by anyone.

It is further mandatory to guard against the impulse to gratuitous vigilantism.  But the existence of vigilantism does not obviate individual responsibility for personal and public protection.

Similarly, in a system of sovereignty that purports to have any claim to liberty, it is the responsibility of liberty-leaning nations to be a cop.  The World’s Policeman as so many spit in false, self-righteous invective.  As if it’s a bad thing.  That is our job.  Discretion and wisdom − and a substantial understanding of International Law and military doctrine − is necessary here, though, as well.  Part of that discretion and wisdom lies in knowing which battles to fight yourself, which battles to leave others to fight on their own, and which battles have no practical sovereign up-side even if they are worth fighting.

Please note, there are no separate and distinct “professionals” in sovereign libertying.  Each sovereign nation is, to the dismay of many including myself, as professional as it gets.

As with individual defense of liberty, it is mandatory to guard against sovereign vigilantism.  But wariness of vigilantism does not negate the reality that self-defense and defense of others takes place among and within sovereign states, and thus triggers the Holy NAP just as surely as a home invader does.  Pretending otherwise is outright craven pacifism, and is not principled use of force.  It is Grade-A hypocrisy.

…and that, as usual, when this topic is broached, seems to be where we came in.  Libertarians, practice what you preach.