The "libertarian principle of non-intervention" is recently in the news. So let us take a look at it. by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, May 20, 2011
A couple of events this April have injected "the libertarian principle of non-intervention" into the current political discourse. On April 4, Independent Political Report reported a charge by Lt.-Col. Karen Kwiatkowski "that the Libertarian Party coddles a vocal party minority which favors foreign policy interventionism,", and her warning "that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone."(1) On April 22, anarcholibertarian theoretician Justin Raimondo challenged the widely-touted libertarian credentials of Republican Presidential contender Gary Johnson, on the grounds that "Johnson’s devotion to the libertarian principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations is really questionable."(2) With that principle in the news, now seems a good time to take a look at it.
So, what is non-intervention? The web supplies several definitions, of which this one from Wikinfo is a reasonable example:
"Non-intervention is the norm in international relations and international law that one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination."(3)
Non-intervention, as defined above, is a libertarian policy. It is merely an application, to relations between states, of the same libertarian moral rules that are the 'norm' in relations between individuals. My next-door neighbour and I, for example, are non-interventionists with respect to each other. We are not isolationists: we often talk, sometimes visit each other's homes, sometimes borrow from and lend to each other. But we do not invade the other family's property or interfere in its internal affairs. We each stay on our side of the fence, and mind our own busines. Similarly, to advocate non-intervention, as defined above, is to advocate that states do likewise.
However, non-intervention, as defined above, is not a principle. A principle, as libertarians use the word, is "a fundamental or primary rule of action that gives a guiding sense of right or wrong and thereby serves as a basis of conduct." The key word here being 'primary'; if a statement (or a belief or a rule, as those are equivalent to statements) is primary, that means it is not reasoned out or concluded from anything else: it is fundamental. Moral statements (including moral beliefs and moral rules) can be either primary or reasoned out from other statements.(4) Moral rules, then, can be principles or not (and my own suspicion is that many if not most of anyone's set of moral or ethical rules are not.)
In the Wikipedia definition, non-intervention is specifically said to be not a principle, but to be 'based upon' -- that is, derived by reasoning from -- prior 'principles,' of state sovereignty and self-determination. Similary, my non-intervention toward my neighbour is not a 'principle' but based on moral rules or maxims of property and liberty -- which I would argue are not principles either, but all ultimately derived from a single moral principle of nonaggression.
But isn't that just splitting hairs? Does it make any practical difference whether the moral rule (or set of rules) summed up in the word non-intervention) is a principle or not?
Well, yes, it does. For there is another way of classifying moral rules, which turns out to correlate with the principle/conclusion distinction we've made.
Moral rules are imperatives: Do X, Do not do Y. Imperatives can be either hypothetical or categorical. true. Hypothetical imperatives compel actions in given circumstances: [for example,] I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances.(5) For example, the slogan No draft! expresses a categorical imperative absolutely no draft, ever while No peacetime draft expresses a hypothetical one: If it is peacetime, then no draft.
Moral principles are categorical imperatives: they are always and everywhere compelling. Whereas moral conclusions are hypothetical imperatives: they are conclusions based on both ought statements ultimately principles and statements of fact, and are true (and therefore compelling ) if the statements they are based on are true. So the question of whether non-intervention is a principle or not is the same question as whether non-intervention is a categorical or hypothetical imperative, and our conclusion is that it is hypothetical.
Similarly, we must conclude that my non-intervention with respect to my neighbour is not a categorical but a hypothetical: That I respect his property and his affairs because certain conditions apply; and that I would not if certain other conditions did apply.
The first condition, of course, is that he was not intervening in my property or affairs in a way that I would have to intervene in his to defend mine. Even the most true believer in the principle of non-intervention would allow that condition, of course, and it is probably better to reflect it merely by building an exception for defense into the rule of non-intervention itself, as in: Do not initiate intervention.
But I can see other places where intervening in my neighbors property would not be wrong. For example, it would not be wrong, if I see a burglar breaking into a neighbours home, at a time I know she is not home, for me to enter her home myself to apprehend or confront the burglar. (Whether I do so in person or by proxy, by contacting whatever police service I use and having them enter his home, makes no difference.) Nor would it be wrong for her and me to have an agreement that either of us would do just that in such a case. By analogy, it would not be wrong for governments to have similar agreements (military alliances) and to actually send troops onto each others territory if one of them is invaded.
I can even imagine cases in which I would intervene in a neighbours property without his consent. Suppose I saw a neighbour in his own back yard, burying what looked like dead children. I might not know how best to intervene, but I would not a priori rule out intervening in any way at all. By analogy, I would not expect a government to rule out a priori any intervention whatever in cases of genocide.
'Genocide,' as Raimondo reminds us, is a word that can easily have its meaning stretched.(2) I am thinking of cases like 1940s Germany, 1970s Cambodia, or 1990s Rwanda. There is plenty of room, under the umbrella of the non-aggression principle, to argue whether other governments should (prudentially) intervene in this or that case, and how they should do so; given the costs of intervention, one would expect non-intervention to be the norm in most cases. Which is not the same thing as ruling intervention out a priori, on the basis of dubious 'principle'.
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance 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.
Posted By: Edu Montesanti Goldoni
Date: May 21, 2011 06:02:46 AM
So nice article! Nice ideas, bright arguments, George! Even being a Socialist, this ponit put by you above is aur common aim, and it has to unite us and lead us to more diaolgue and debates. I just think, as my socialist position suggests, that free market would give away the corruoted power to big companies, and they would take charge of dominate people, substituting politicians. It is a suggestion of article and discussion to you, George, one of the brightest and cultured columnists of the Chart. Let us raise the democratic debate about... I confess I am reading nice ideas from you Libertarians, which make me reflect a lot. I see our aim, in a big part, is absolutely the same. But I really do not see the way of free market as the most secure to reach such aims... God bless you, George
Posted By: George Dance
Date: May 21, 2011 09:14:00 AM
Thank you for the kind words, sir. You make a reasonable objection to the libertarian idea, and it's one that I'd like to answer. But I'm afraid it will take more than a brief reply in a letter to answer them. Your idea of beginning a debate is more realistic.
I am not one myself (more from ignorance of the issue than anything), but there are libertarians who share your concerns about corporations: however, they believe that corporations are artificial creations of government, and the way to deal with them is to repeal the laws that prop them up. I believe Walt Thiessen shares some of those views.
Here's an older article of his that I think you might enjoy:
Posted By: Edu Montesanti
Date: May 21, 2011 12:13:03 PM
thank you very very much for the recommendation. I will surely check it out, let us see if we start discussing this topic a little more on the Chart, George. I will see if write articles abou it...
