Subscribe to our Daily Blog

The Essence of Libety

Please Click ton Ab

Liberty knows no compromise

by Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 25: On Relations Between States

Compiled and Edited

by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

There would be no such thing as the State in a moral world. So, it follows that neither would there be any such thing as “foreign policy exist.” However, given the existence of States, are there any moral principles that can be used as criteria for foreign policy? Yes. Just as it is with “domestic policy,” the goal would be to reduce the level of coercion by States over individuals as much as possible.

Let's return to the stateless world. If Jones (or his property) is being aggressed against by Smith, it would be legitimate for him to use defensive violence. But he has no to commit aggression against innocent third parties in the process. To be more specific, if Jones' property is stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel and try to catch him. But, he has no right to attempt that by bombing a building, murdering innocent people or spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd.

The same rule would apply is Smith and Jones have men on their sides, i.e. if “war” breaks out between them. Jones and his men have no right to aggress against anyone but Smith in the course of their “just war.” Furthermore, they (Jones and his army) have no right to: 1) steal other peoples' property to finance their war; 2) conscript others by the use of violence; or 3) kill others in the attempt to capture Smith and his forces.

Suppose that Jones, in his "just war" against Smith, is willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve his legitimate end. He would become a criminal for even a just defensive war is only proper when violence is limited to the individual criminals.

Although the modern rifle (and even the bow and arrow) can be used for aggressive purposes, they can be pinpointed against actual criminals. However nuclear weapons (and even “conventional” bombs and artillery) cannot. Thus these weapons are ipso facto weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction. As such, their use is an unjustifiable crime against humanity. In other words, modern weapons cannot be used selectively. So, just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, mass murder is the worst crime that man can possibly commit.

Now let's introduce the State into the discussion. Every State holds the monopoly of violence over a given territorial area. If its extortions go un-resisted, there is said to be “peace.” The only violence is continuing and one-way—directed downward by the State against its people. Should open conflict within the area break out, it is called “revolution.” Rothbard termed these two states of affairs “vertical violence” which is violence of the State against its public or vice versa.

A large number of States, each holding a territorial monopoly of violence, exists in the world. So, we could say that a state of “anarchy” exists between the States. And, except for revolutions, the open violence takes place between States. This is what we call “international war” or “horizontal violence.” (Rothbard notes: “It is curious and inconsistent that conservative advocates of ‘limited government' denounce as absurd any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory, thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, and yet are equally insistent on leaving nation- States without an overlord to settle disputes between them.”)

There are vital differences between inter-State warfare and revolutions or conflicts between private individuals. For one, with a revolution the conflict takes place within the same geographical area. By contrast, inter-State warfare occurs between inhabitants of different territories. This has several important consequences.

First, with inter-State war, if the escalation of weaponry becomes too great, each side will blow itself up. In contrast, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play.

Second, it is at least possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and avoid aggressing against innocent people. This is far less possible in an inter-State war.

Furthermore, each State can mobilize all the people within its territory. Therefore, the other State comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as its enemies and treats them accordingly. In short, it is almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against innocent civilians.

There is another unique attribute of international war. Since all States live by taxation, war increase taxation-aggression against their own people. Conflicts between private individuals are voluntarily waged and financed by the parties to the conflict. In the same manner, revolutions are often financed and fought by voluntary contributions. But State wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer.

Therefore, we must conclude that, although some revolutions and private conflicts may be legitimate, State wars are always to be condemned.

In reality, the State monopoly of defense service does, in fact, exist. As long it does, the State must be held to at least confine its activities to the area which it monopolizes. The goal is to reduce, as much as possible, the area of State aggression against all private individuals--foreign or domestic and confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible.

(Rothbard footnotes: “…the less the State can successfully defend the inhabitants of its area against attack by (non-State) criminals, the more these inhabitants may come to learn the inefficiency of State operations, and the more they will turn to non-State methods of defense. Failure by the State to defend, therefore, may have educative value for the public.”)

Now, suppose a citizen of country A travels to or invests in country B and the State (B) aggresses against him or his property. Should State A threaten or commit war against State B in defense of the property of “its” citizen? No! Each State has a monopoly of violence (and therefore defense) over only its own territorial area. Therefore, if an inhabitant of country A moves to or invests in country B, he takes his chances with the State monopolists of country B.

Furthermore, since there is no defense against nuclear weapons, it follows that the State cannot fulfill any sort of international defense function so long as these weapons exist.

Old-fashioned international law had two excellent devices for reducing the scope of assault against innocent civilians—the “laws of war,” and the “laws of neutrality.” An example is the ancient, but now forgotten, American principles of “freedom of the seas” which was meant to exert limitations upon the warring States against repression of neutral trade with the enemy country. The “laws of war” were designed keep war strictly confined to the warring States and to limit as much as possible their invasion of the rights of the civilians of the respective warring countries.

One corollary to peaceful coexistence and nonintervention is the abstention from foreign aid. Any aid given by one State to another increases the tax aggression against the people of the giving State and also aggravates the suppression by the receiving State of its own people.

Imperialism may be defined as the aggression of State A against the people of country B and subsequent foreign rule. In that case, revolution against the imperialist is absolutely legitimate—as long as the revolutionary fire is directed only against the rulers. It is often argued that Western imperialism would be more watchful of property rights than any successor native government. This argument is flawed in at least two ways. First, what might follow the status quo is purely speculative and secondly, it neglects the injuries of imperialism suffered by the Western taxpayer, who is compelled to pay for the wars of conquest and the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy.

Opposition to inter-State war does not mean consigning the world to a freezing of the current unjust territorial boundaries. There are legitimate routes to geographical change—revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed people and aid to the rebels from private groups or friends of their cause from other countries.

Finally, domestic tyranny is an inevitable result of inter-State war. The State comes into its own when at war. It swells in power, in number, in pride and absolute dominion over the economy and society. The root myth that enables this to happen is that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. A State “dies” only when defeated in war or by revolution. So, when at war, the State is frantic to mobilize the people to fight for it against the other State. This is accomplished under the pretext that it is fighting for them. As a result, society becomes militarized and statized—a herd that happily betrays truth for the supposed public interest.

Continue to the next chapter...

Back to the Table of Contents

Visit our Book Store

Visit Our Advertisers

Email for Advertising Rates

Use the link or send an email to: adinfo@flyover-press.com