FlyoverPress.com

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would

wish unknown to the whole world." Thomas Jefferson

The concepts expressed on this web site are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997 as applying to the Internet.


HOME


Support FlyoverPress

Donate


Click Here to Puruse the old Flyover-press

Subscribe to our Daily Blog


The Essence of Libety



Please Click ton Ab

 

 

Liberty knows no compromise


A Condensed Version of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

Compiled by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Chapter 14: War and Foreign Policy

"Isolationism" Left and Right

Opponents of WWI were attacked as "leftists." But then, “isolationism" was a smear term for opponents of American entry into World War II. It was generally applied to mean pro-Nazi and took on a "right wing," negative flavor. Then again, in more recent times “isolationist” (antiwar) forces have been considered "leftists. So which is it?

"Isolationism" sounds right-wing while "neutralism" and "peaceful coexistence" sound leftish. However, their essence is the same—opposition to war and political intervention in the affairs of other countries. Very few anti-interventionists actually and literally favor "isolation." Generally, they favor political nonintervention coupled with economic and cultural internationalism—e.g. freedom of trade, investment, and interchange between citizens of all countries. This is the libertarian position.

Limiting Government

Liberty is a natural human right held by all peoples. So, libertarians favor the abolition of all States everywhere. In a free world there would be no "foreign policy" because there would be no States with a monopoly of coercion over their geographic areas.

Pending the dissolution of States, the libertarian goal is to push back the role of government and limit its power. The libertarian goal for foreign policy is the same—to keep government from interfering in the affairs of other countries. Peaceful coexistence among nations is the foreign policy equivalent of severely limiting government domestically. The goal is to at least keep the States violence confined to its own territorial area and keep them from extending that violence to other countries. The objective is to confine any existing State to as small a level of invasion of person and property as possible. This, of course, means the avoidance of aggressive wars.

With the advent of modern weapons, one country's invasion of another always means the slaughter of innocent civilians—people who have had nothing to do with the crimes their government may have committed. This mass murder is the ultimate crime. In addition, all governments obtain their revenue from thievery (coercive taxation). Therefore, any launching of troops inevitably involves increased tax-coercion. So, inter-State wars, at best, inevitably involve mass murder abroad and an increase in tax-coercion at home. Libertarians are opposed to both.

The scope of wars was much more limited during the Middle Ages than it is today. Before the development of modern weapons, governments could confine their violence to the armies of the rival government. Although tax-coercion increased, at least there was no mass murder of innocents. Furthermore, there was no central nation-state that claimed to speak for all the inhabitants of a given area. Moreover, instead of masses of conscripts, armies were small bands of hired mercenaries.

As long as war continues, the scope of assault on innocent civilians must be reduced as much as possible to a minimum. Old-fashioned international law had two devices for doing this—the "laws of war" and the "laws of neutrality" which were designed to keep any war restricted to the warring States themselves. These laws were intended to limit the invasion of the rights of civilians by warring States. Hostilities between civilized peoples must be limited to the armed forces actually engaged and a clear distinction must be made between combatants and non-combatants. This rule held until the strategic bombing by the British of civilians in World War II. (Editor's Note: I would argue that it was Abraham Lincoln and his General Sherman who pioneered the modern concept of what we know today as “total war.”) Nowadays, the entire concept is hardly remembered—the very intent of modern nuclear warfare is the annihilation of civilians.

The 20th twentieth-century theory of "collective security" is “the idea that when one government "aggresses" against another, it is the moral obligation of the other governments of the world to band together to defend the ‘victimized' State.” There are several fatal flaws in this concept.

Any time any State enters into an ongoing war between two other countries, they are themselves expanding and compounding the aggression. They unjustly slaughter civilians of the opposing country. Not only that, but they increase tax-coercion over their own citizens. Furthermore, they render their own civilian citizens open to retaliation by the opposing country. And finally, the conscription-enslavement of their citizens will usually increase.

Another flaw is illustrated by an analogy of aggression by one individual upon another. Let's say Smith is beating up Jones and the police rush to the defense of the victim and stop the aggression. That's fine. But "aggression" only makes sense on the individual level. It makes no sense on the inter-State level. Why? Well first, as we saw above, governments that enter an ongoing war themselves become aggressors against innocent civilians. The correct analogy would be: Smith beats up Jones and the police rush to help. But, in the course of “helping,” they bomb a city block and murder thousands of people. That is what warring governments do—on a massive scale.

Further, there is another flaw in the analogy. When Smith beats up Jones and/or steals his property, he is clearly an aggressor against the person and/or property of Jones. But when one State invades another it is not "aggression" in the same sense because no government has a just claim to any property in a given area. No State has any legitimate property because all of its territory is the result of aggression and/or violent conquest.

Within the context of the nation-state system, sometimes an "aggressor" State has a plausible claim. For example, suppose a century earlier State A invaded State B and seized some of its territory. The inhabitants of the occupied areas remain culturally, ethnically, and linguistically the same as those of State B. So, State B now invades State A in order to reunite with their kinsmen. In such a case and in the unlikely event that the two countries could return to pre-modern warfare, the libertarian would unreservedly side with State B. However, it is unlikely that, today, all the necessary conditions of pre-modern warfare could be met—e.g. weapons limited so as to avoid harm to the persons or property of civilians, volunteer (not conscript) armies were fielded, and financing was voluntary and not by taxation.

From this example, we can deduce that revolutionary guerrilla warfare can be consistent with libertarian principles. By definition, guerrillas inhabit the same country as the enemy State. They defend the civilian population against the depredations of a State. Consequently, they cannot use weapons of mass destruction. They rely on the support of the civilian population for victory. They are able to spare civilians and pinpoint their activities strictly against the State apparatus and its armed forces. Furthermore, as part of their quest for civilian support, they often refrain from conscription and taxation relying strictly on voluntary support.

These qualities are only possessed by the revolutionary side. By contrast, the State's counterrevolutionary forces rely on mass terror. Since guerrillas rely on the population for their support, the State must either destroy that population, or herd it into concentration camps in order to separate it from the guerrillas. An example from recent history is the failed "strategic hamlet" program conducted in South Vietnam.

Libertarian foreign policy is not pacifistic. We do not hold that an individual has no right to use violence to defend himself against violence. However, we do hold that no one has the right to conscript, tax, or murder others. Since all States exist through aggression against their own subjects and since inter-State wars slaughter innocent civilians, these wars are always unjust. However, guerrilla warfare is capable of meeting libertarian requirements for a just war because it is capable of pinpointing its defensive violence against State officials and armies and can use voluntary methods to staff and finance the effort.

American Foreign Policy

Empirically, over the entire 20 th century, the united States has had the most warlike, interventionist and imperialistic government on earth.

This expansionism began in the late 19 th century with the war against Spain, dominating Cuba , grabbing Puerto Rico and brutally suppressing a rebellion for independence in the Philippines. It reached full flower with World War I which led directly to the Bolshevik triumph in Russia and the Nazi victory in Germany. Woodrow Wilson fixed the features of American foreign policy for the rest of this century.

Since then, the uS government's foreign policy has been one of domination and forcible suppression of any rebellion against the status quo anywhere in the world. It has itself become a great and continuing aggressor—all in the name of “combating aggression,” “national self-determination,” “collective security” and its self-appointed role as the world's policeman. (Editor's note: And we can now add “spreading democracy.”)

Is that hard to swallow? Well, consider the typical American reaction to any crisis anywhere in the world—even some remote area that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, any sort of threat to America . The simple fact that the united States government tries to impose its will on every crisis in the world makes it abundantly clear that it is the great interventionist and imperial power.

Of America 's recent wars, the most traumatic was Vietnam —a microcosm of what was tragically wrong with American foreign policy. (Editor's Note: Only time will tell if the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East will replace Vietnam for this “honor.”)

Throughout the conflict, the uS government maintained that the cause was "aggression" by the Communist North Vietnamese. But in reality, it was an attempt to suppress the wishes of the great bulk of the Vietnamese population and to maintain unpopular client dictators—by virtual genocide if necessary.

Note that imperialism does not have to involve direct rule. In fact, the indirect form is more subtle and less visible but no less effective. With this approach the imperial State rules the foreign population through its effective control over native client-rulers. In other words, it maintains the local ruling class in exchange for the ability to superimpose its exploitation upon the existing exploitation.

Isolationist Criticisms

“The last anti-interventionist and anti-imperialist thrust of the old conservative and classical liberal isolationists came during the Korean War.” Rothbard makes his case in this section by citing some of the major critics of uS involvement in Korea.

For example: George Morgenstern published the detailed and grisly record of uS government imperialism from the Spanish-American War down to Korea in the right-wing publication Human Events.

Another example is the conservative isolationist Joseph P. Kennedy who called for uS withdrawal from Korea . Kennedy proclaimed, "I naturally opposed Communism but I said if portions of Europe or Asia wish to go Communistic or even have Communism thrust upon them, we cannot stop it."

One of the most trenchant and forceful attacks on American foreign policy was leveled by Garet Garrett in his pamphlet, The Rise of Empire (1952).

War as the Health of the State

There are two important reasons to oppose a warlike foreign policy. One is the importance of preventing nuclear holocaust. (Keep in mind that Rothbard was writing during the height of the Cold War.) The other is that, as Randolph Bourne put it, “war is the health of the State."

War has always been a time of a great (and usually permanent) increase in State power over society. The State really comes into its own when at war. Society becomes a herd standing happily ready to betray truth for the supposed public interest. It becomes an armed camp with the values and the morals of an "army on the march," as Albert Jay Nock once put it.

War enables the State to rally its citizens under the slogan of defending the country against an outside menace. For the root myth is that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The truth, however, is the exact reverse. A State can only "die" by defeat in war or by revolution. Therefore, it mobilizes its subjects to fight for it under the pretext that it is fighting for them.

In the uS, war has been the main reason for intensification of State power. The War of 1812 brought fractional-reserve banking, protective tariffs, internal federal taxation, a standing army and navy, and (as a direct consequence) the reestablishment of a central bank. The War of Yankee Aggression led to the neo-mercantilist policy of Big Government subsidizing big business interests with protective tariffs, land grants to railroads, federal excise taxes, and a federally controlled banking system. World War I brought corporate state monopoly at home and global intervention abroad. It brought an economy planned by the federal government in collaboration with big business and nurtured a labor movement that would become a junior partner in the corporate State economy. World War I also brought permanent global intervention, the Federal Reserve System, a permanent income tax, high federal budgets, conscription, and close connections between economic boom, war contracts, and loans to Western nations.

Herbert Hoover's vision was completed by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. World War II was the fulfillment of all the aforementioned trends. Roosevelt fastened a permanent partnership between Big Government, big business, and big unions on America as well as a constantly expanding military-industrial complex; conscription, permanent inflation; and the costly role as counterrevolutionary "policeman" for the world.

There is no greater distortion of the free market than the military-industrial complex. It has diverted scientists and engineers from productive research into wasteful boondoggles. Keynesian economists are equally in favor of all forms of government spending, be it on pyramids, missiles, or steel plants. They all increase gross national product, regardless of how wasteful.

Government spending has diverted science and industry into unproductive purposes and inefficient processes. Satisfying consumers has been replaced by the currying of favors by government contractors. Politics has replaced economics in guiding industry. And economic prosperity has come to depend on the narcotic of government spending as huge vested interest has been created in continuing these government programs.

John T. Flynn, in As We Go Marching , (written in the midst of the war) prophesied that the New Deal would attempt to permanently expand this system. He accurately predicted that the focus of governmental spending would continue to be on the military. That is because conservatives would never object and workers would welcome it because it created jobs. Militarism is a glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements can agree.

Flynn predicted that the uS' postwar policy would become imperialistic which would follow from the policy of militarism. He foresaw that the uS government would keep fears of aggressive ambitions of other countries alive while, at the same time, embarking on imperialistic enterprises of its own. He knew that imperialism would insure a perpetual supply of "enemies." He was absolutely right.

Editor's Note: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union , the uS government has been hard pressed to find another “boogieman.” Candidates include Radical Islam (itself a product of meddlesome foreign policy), a starving and inert North Korea and China . In spite of China 's continuous movement toward a free market economy, it has been accused of everything from poisoning our pets (contaminated pet food) to killing our children (led paint on toys).

Soviet Foreign Policy

(Editor's Note: This section was originally written in the present tense. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union , it is now mostly history. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to change the tense of most of the verbs from the present to the past.)

During the cold war, American foreign policy was based on the assumption of a Russian attack. But, was that a realistic assumption?

No doubt, the Soviets would have liked to replace the existing social systems with communism. But this would hardly mean that any sort of attack would have been realistic. In the first place, Marxism itself holds that victory is inevitable. After all, the tensions and contradictions within each society would inevitably lead to internal revolution or democratic change leading to communism. In other words, the very idea of "exporting" communism on the backs of the Soviet military was contradictory to Marxist-Leninist theory. And, Marxist-Leninist theory, with its goal of world Communism, was the sole basis for the cold warrior's conjuring up of the threat.

Of course, this was not meant to say that Soviet leaders would never have done anything contrary to their guiding theory. But, as ordinary rulers of a nation-state, the case for an imminent threat was weakened. This is because, if Soviet rulers were acting in the interest of their own nation-state, the argument for imminent military assault crumbles.

The Bolsheviks gave little thought to foreign policy because they firmly believed that Communist revolution would soon follow in the industrial countries. After World War I they adopted a foreign policy of "peaceful coexistence." Although Russia was to serve as a beacon and supporter of Communism throughout the world, it would promote peaceful relations and not try to export Communism through warfare. Survival was the foremost goal of foreign policy. The state was never to be endangered by inter-State warfare.

As time went on, this policy was reinforced by “conservatism." Keeping power took precedence over the ideal of world revolution. This served to strengthen their "peaceful coexistence" policy.

The Bolsheviks were the only political party during World War I to clamor for an immediate pullout. Indeed, they went so far as to call for the defeat of their own government ("revolutionary defeatism"). Then, when the Bolsheviks took power, Lenin concluded the "appeasement" peace of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. This took Russia out of the war at the price of granting the Germans parts of the Russian empire. In other words, the Bolsheviks started out as a "peace-at-any-price" party.

After World War I the new Polish State attacked Russia and grabbed a part of White Russia and the Ukraine . In addition, several other national groups ( Finland , Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania ) broke away. But, it was clear to Soviet rulers that the old Russian State was supposed to remain intact. So, the emphasis of both Russian and German foreign policy was to recapture their pre-World War I borders—what they considered the "true" borders of their States.

Germany , under Hitler, took strong measures to recapture their lost territories. But, Soviet leaders were cautious and did nothing until after the Stalin-Hitler pact when there was no danger in doing so.

On June 22, 1941, Germany launched an unprovoked assault on the Soviet Union . This was one of the pivotal facts in history. Stalin was so unwarlike and so unprepared for the assault that Germany was almost able to conquer Russia . Hitler was so motivated by anti-Communist ideology that he threw away rationality and launched the beginning of his ultimate defeat.

Since most cold warriors approved of the alliance between the uS and Russia during World War II, most of them concede that the Soviets were not aggressive until World War II. But this overlooks the German assault of Russia in June of 1941. There is no doubt but what Germany started this war making it necessary for the Russians to roll back and conquer the German army. In fact, it would be easier to make the case that the uS was more expansionist than Russia . After all the uS conquered and occupied Germany and Italy neither of which ever directly attacked it.

The uS, Britain, and Russia agreed on joint three-power occupation of the conquered territories at the end of the war. The uS was the first to break that agreement by refusing to allow Russia a role in the military occupation of Italy . Despite this, in order to preserve peaceful relations, Stalin held back the various Communist movements in France and Italy . As a result, these movements were soon ousted from the coalition. He also abandoned the Communist movements in Greece and urged them to turn over power to the British. However, leaders of partisan groups in other countries (Tito in Yugoslavia and Mao in China ) refused Stalin's requests. These rejections were the beginning of the ”schisms” that developed within the Communist world during the Cold War.

Russia occupied and governed Eastern Europe after winning a war that was launched against her. Its initial goal was not to communize but to assure that Eastern Europe would not be the avenue of assault on Russia that it had been in the past. Russia wanted countries on its borders which were not anti-Communist in a military sense and would not be used as a springboard for invasion. Only in Finland did Russia find non-Communist politicians it could trust to be peaceful. Therefore, it was willing to pull its troops out even though it had fought two wars with Finland in recent years.

In other Eastern European countries Russia maintained coalition governments for several years not fully communizing them until 1948. Furthermore, she readily pulled her troops out of Austria and Azerbaijan.

If Russia had been hell-bent on imposing communism, then why the "soft line" on Finland ? The only plausible answer is that her primary motive was security for the nation-state with success of world communism being secondary.

The cold warriors were never able to explain the deep schisms in world Communism. If Communists are motivated by the mutual bond of Marxism-Leninism, how come the China-Russia split, the enmity between the Yugoslavia and Albania or the military conflict between Cambodia and Vietnam ? The answer is simple. Once a revolutionary movement seizes State power, it quickly takes on the attributes of a ruling class with a class interest in retaining State power. World revolution pales in the face of the conflicting interests of the State elites.

Since their victory over aggression in World War II, the Soviets have continued to be militarily conservative. They have only used troops to defend their territory and not to extend it further. The incidents in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 were surely reprehensible. But nevertheless they were still conservative and defensive and not expansionist.

In no case since World War II did Russia use troops to extend or conquer more territory. The main thrust of Soviet conservatism was to preserve what it already had at home and abroad, not to jeopardize it. Its militaristic actions in Czechoslovakia were acts of imperial protectionism, not revolution or aggrandizement. Detente was not altruistic. It was in the Soviet national interest.

Even the anti-Soviet former CIA Director William Colby recognized the overwhelming concern of the Soviets to be the defensive and to avoid another catastrophic invasion.

Furthermore, even the Chinese have pursued a pacific foreign policy. They did not invade Taiwan . They allowed the islands of Quemoy and Matsu to remain in Chiang Kai-shek's hands. They have not moved against British and Portuguese-occupied Hong Kong and Macao . Their invasion of Vietnam was a brief incursion followed by unilateral withdrawal. They declared a unilateral cease-fire and withdrew after having easily defeated the Indian army in their border war.

Avoiding A Priori History

Woodrow Wilson was one of the first to propound the myth that democracies are somehow peace-loving while dictatorships are naturally warlike. There is no evidence for this assumption. Instead of international adventurism, many dictators have turned inward to prey on their own people. Examples include pre-modern Japan, Communist Albania, and much of today's Third World. By contrast, such democracies as Great Britain and the uS have spread coercive imperialism world wide.

All States rule their population and decide whether or not to make war and all of them are run by ruling elite. Whether they will make war is a “function of a complex interweaving web of causes.” Among other things, public opinion is always a consideration. The only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the democracy must beam more propaganda at its subjects in order to gain their approval. Zealous opinion-molding behavior can be seen in all states but a democracy must work harder at it. It must also be more hypocritical in using rhetoric and its art of propagandizing must be more sophisticated. This is true of all government decisions for they must persuade their subjects that their oppression is really in the subjects' own best interests.

The above applies as well to the lack of correlation between internal freedom in a country and its external aggressiveness. Some States allow a good degree of freedom internally while making aggressive war abroad. Others demonstrate totalitarian rule internally but pursue a peaceful foreign policy.

In summary, Americans must guard against a priori history: which, in this case, involves the assumption that the more democratic State which allows more internal freedom will automatically be the victim of aggression by the more dictatorial or totalitarian State. There is simply no historical evidence to support this. It is vital for Americans to look as clearly and as free from myth at their government's record in foreign affairs as they do in domestic politics. War and a phony "external threat" have been the chief means by which the State wins back the loyalty of its subjects. War and militarism were the gravediggers of classical liberalism. The State must not be allowed to get away with this ruse again.

A Foreign Policy Program

In conclusion of this chapter, the uS government must abandon its policy of global interventionism and withdraw immediately from everywhere to within its own borders . It must dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its political meddling, abolish the CIA, end all foreign aid and maintain a policy of strict political neutrality.

In 1936, retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler proposed a constitutional amendment that should still be taken seriously. This is what he proposed:

1. Removal of land armed forces from within the continental boundary of the United States would be prohibited for any reason.

2. Naval vessels would be prohibited from steaming more than five hundred miles from the coast. And,

3. Aircraft would be prohibited from flying more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast.

Disarmament

Strict isolationism and neutrality is the first plank of libertarian foreign policy. With reference to an arms policy, "arming to the teeth" poses a grave risk of global holocaust in a nuclear age not to mention the economic distortions that are caused by unproductive government spending.

From a military point of view, the uS could preserve its nuclear retaliatory power by scrapping every armament except the Polaris submarine. But even that would hardly be satisfactory as world peace would still rest on a shaky "balance of terror" that could be upset by accident or by madmen in power. Nothing short of worldwide nuclear disarmament will ensure security from the nuclear menace.

It is in the interest of even State rulers to not to be annihilated. Thus, this mutual self-interest provides a rational basis for "general and complete disarmament" of all weapons of mass destruction. Interestingly, the Soviet Union accepted such a proposal in 1955. However, the Soviet acceptance prompted a total and panicky Western withdrawal and abandonment of the proposal.

The American version held we wanted disarmament plus inspection but the Soviets only wanted disarmament without inspection. The truth is that the Soviet Union favored all disarmament and unlimited inspection. By contrast, Americans advocated unlimited inspection with little or no disarmament. Eisenhower's dishonest "open skies" proposal replaced the disarmament proposals we quickly withdrew after Soviet acceptance in 1955. Even after open skies had become a reality with space satellites, the 1972 SALT agreement involved no actual disarmament—only limitations on further expansion.

Disarmament should not only include nuclear weapons, but all weapons capable of being fired across national borders because missiles and bombers can never be pinpoint-targeted to avoid killing innocent civilians. Furthermore, considering the black record of all governments, it would be irrational to leave weapons of mass murder in their hands and to trust that they would never use them. If they are illegitimate to employ, then why should they remain in those none-too-clean hands?

To contrast the conservative and the libertarian positions on war and foreign policy: “…anyone who wishes is entitled to make the personal decision of ‘better dead than Red' or ‘give me liberty or give me death.' What he is not entitled to do is to make these decisions for others, as the pro-war policy of conservatism would do. What conservatives are really saying is: "Better them dead than Red," and "give me liberty or give them death"—which are the battle cries not of noble heroes but of mass murderers.”

Continue to the next chapter...


*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.


Visit our Book Store


Support FlyoverPress

Visit Our Advertisers


Email for Advertising Rates

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


 

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.