The statist response to an admittedly moving Libertarian column by Logical Premise
(statist)
Friday, February 18, 2011
"The heart of libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals is always wrong. In other words, peace is the very heart of libertarianism. Nothing is more positive than stopping war. Nothing could be more positive than putting an end to the killing of other people's children." - R. Lee Wrights
What a magnificent, moving statement that is.
And how far, indeed, does it miss the true point.
There have been many poignant statements regarding war and violence over the years, by many great men and women. Leaders and statesmen, martyrs and victims of oppressive and fell governments, the destroyed and cast-aside in every conflict. Issac Asimov once catagorized violence as the last refuge of the incompetant, and Jesus admonishes us to turn the other cheek when struck by our neighbor.
So why is war so pervasive? Why is violence so common? Why, if war is so wrong, is it always turned to?
This is, sadly, a question that libertarians cannot answer truthfully. I do not say that to insult them. I think any human viewpoint of governance , from anarchy to fascism and from religious dynasty to corporate oligarchy, has by the nature of being derived from humans certain blind spots. It's usually pretty easy to spot. Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that the world always changes. Liberals have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that different is not always "good". Religous figures can't deal with the reality that there is nothing proving their view is right and everyone else is wrong. Economic political parties blindly ignore the reality that all scarcity is artificial. Statists ...well, someone can tell me my blind spot in responses.
Libertarians have a blind spot when it comes to force.
The article I am referring to, here, is a good example of Libertarian thinking. It states the case that
"War is never good, no matter how moral, lofty or beneficial the justification sounds"
"War is a zero-sum game"
"War is not really about ideas, not about right and wrong, nor about doing good and opposing evil. War is about power and control, plain and simple."
The problem is that all three of the tenets are patiently false. They have been proven patiently false in the past, and they remain false today.
That doesn't mean the world wouldn't be a better place if they were true. But we must deal with reality, not dreams or wishes. We must work with what is. And thus, let me lay out my arguments.
WAR IS NEVER GOOD
The definition of good closest in mind to what I believe the author had in mind was "beneficial / benevolent". He says it cannot be good no matter what the justification is. We'll leave aside the impossibility of proving a negative and deal with historical fact.
World War II was the most violent, destructive conflict known to mankind. It created monsters the likes of which had never been seen before, both in human form and in our technology. We slaughtered each other by the tens of millions, utlized all of our creative abilities to achieve harnessing the very power of the sun itself for no more than a bigger bomb to kill with, and we did it because of this very concept above.
The Treaty of Versailles, far from being "revanchism" as stated by some, was not designed to wreck or ruin Germany. Mutliple historians feel the treaty would have been far , far more punative if US had not pushed the 14 points and had tried to move towards an ideal where there would be no more war. This attempt failed.
It's failure allowed the Nazi Party, and Hitler, to arise. Hitler was , there can be no doubt, evil. Hitler could not be talked down. Hitler could not be removed peacefully because he had convinced his countrymen that he was right. Should we then assume that we should not have gone to war to stop him?
Should we assume, perhaps, that going to war WAS neccessary, but that the act and cost was tragic? Of course it was tragic. But not as tragic as the cost if we had not.
My counter point to "War is never good" is that war is a tool of governments , along with trade, diplomacy, culture exchange, taxes, and economics. Force is a part of life. Expecting humans to live without it is completely unrealistic, as it can never be demonstrated at any point in human anthropological history that any group above hunter-gatherer tribal sophistication has ever been able to sustain large-scale governance without a) infrastructure and tools for war or b) actually waging war.
War is not something that should be embraced. When it comes, it should always be achieved in as quick and as merciful method as possible. It should not be enshrined, or made to be heroic. But it is a required tool of human interaction, and any group who says it isn't will simply be conquered by a group who disagrees.
WAR IS A ZERO SUM GAME
A zero-sum game is where any gain on one side (+2) equals a corresponding loss for the other side (-2). Therefore, at best , war produces nothing.
Again, we'll set aside complicating arguments such as efficiencies of scale and the ugly fact that war pushed everything from metallurgy to atomic power into being invented and used.
I'm going to answer it with two words: Prisoner's Dilemma.
As everyone knows, it's a logic problem explaining why two people might not cooperate even when it's in everyone's best interest to do so. Details can be found elsewhere.
War and Peace are like Prisoner's Dilemma. You have to trust the other side to not take advantage of your willingness to "embrace peace" or the whole framework is pointless. One can argue that superrationality would counteract this, but countries lead by political groups are even less rational than inviduals in most cases.
WAR IS NOT ABOUT IDEAS
This is the one I disagreed with the most, I think.
War is all about ideas. Without ideas, without justifications and emotions, without politics and coercion , there cannot be war.
War is more than merely control and power. That is the definition of government. War is the idea that a conflict can be resolved "better" through the application of violence rather than through any other avenue.
That definition of "better" is the idea you want to go after. War is caused by many things, but all too often it's caused by people who want shortcuts, people who won't listen and don't want to understand each other, and people who feel their way is the only way. War is caused by ideas and ideals, by people who put more faith in concepts like "my nation" and "my flag" than the reality that they are going out there and shooting another human being.
As a Statist, war is simply a tool. It is a distasteful one, to be employed with reluctance, but to always be kept sharp. There is nothing wrong with saying "we should try to avoid wars at all cost". There is nothing wrong with saying "wars kill the innocent and shatter lives".
Unfortunately, hoping that people will magically shed 7,000 years of recorded history and suddenly decide that war is unacceptible is unlikely to happen until the cost of war is too high to be borne. And that will only last as long as people remember what that costs entails.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Logical Premise only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Logical Premise is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
