As the Keystone of Liberty
Peace
is the keystone of liberty and prosperity. To completely understand
why, it will be important to develop a theory of peace.
Most
arguments against war at least partially rely on empirical evidence.
Anti-war literature tends to draw from past calamitous consequences of
foreign interventionism. Here I will endeavor to make the case for peace
using only theoretical incentive analysis.
Extensive
literature already exists discussing the theoretical case for liberty.
This gives us a head start in developing a theory of peace, since peace
is a constituent part of liberty. Thus, peace is ideal for the same
basic reasons that liberty is.
The
philosophy of liberty, as originated by the classical liberalism and
advanced by modern libertarianism, champions the human rights of life,
liberty, and property. These were originally understood in the
“negative” sense (thou shalt not be deprived
of life, liberty, and property). Today, left-liberals often give them a
“positive” spin (i.e., the right to “life” guaranteeing free
healthcare). But they originally meant: the right to not be murdered
(life); the right to not be abducted (liberty); and the right to not be
robbed (property).
At
first blush, this may not sound very different from the common moral
framework shared by most of humanity. Hardly anybody would disagree that
murder, slavery, and theft are bad.
However,
most people add a glaring proviso to this moral code: a special
exemption for government. If the government takes your money at implicit
gunpoint, it is not called theft, but “taxation.” If the government
locks you in a cage for possessing a plant, it is not called kidnapping,
but “incarceration.” And if the government blasts you to pieces with a
Hellfire missile, it’s not called murder, but “war.”
What
distinguishes the philosophy of liberty is that it makes no such
exemption, but holds agents of the government to the same moral
standards as everybody else. And so it rightly looks upon war as mass
murder: violating the individual right to life on an industrial scale.
This gives us one sense in which peace is the keystone of liberty. Peace
is entailed in the right to life, which is entailed in true freedom. So
peace is a constituent part of liberty. And it is a key part, because
without it all freedom crumbles to the ground. To enjoy autonomy and
property, one must have life. There can be no freedom for the war dead.
By
war, we do not mean all violence. Liberty does not necessitate
pacifism. The rights to life, liberty, and property are dead letters if
they cannot be asserted. Life, liberty, and property can be defended,
using violence against the assailant if necessary. And if life, liberty,
and property are taken, restitution from the perpetrator can be sought
by the victim, by force if necessary.
Liberty
does not preclude force, but aggression, which is the initiation of
force. And war always entails aggression. The term “war” is almost never
used to describe the selective pursuit of justice targeting specific
individuals. Wars target not specific perpetrators to make specific
victims whole, but whole populations for obliteration and conquest.
Thus
war always entails the massacre of innocent civilians (as well as much
arbitrary violence inflicted on soldiers and officials).
Some
claim that the violence of their military is exceptionally moral
because it does not specifically target civilians. They chalk up such
collateral damage as “accidental” and as a cost that is regrettably
necessary to make the enemy government answer for its crimes.
First
of all the premise itself is highly dubious: even modern western
militaries see much strategic value in the demoralizing effect of
civilian casualties.
Secondly,
it is a mendacious abuse of language to call such deaths “accidental.”
When you take a dose of medicine knowing of its sedative side-effects,
you don’t say you made yourself drowsy “by accident.” You consciously
brought that effect upon you, even if doing so was not your purpose in
taking the medicine. The fact that it is a side-effect makes it
incidental, not accidental. The same can be said for inflicting civilian
casualties in a bombing raid on a densely populated area. Whatever
their chief objectives are, the bombers know full well civilians will
die due to their actions, and so those deaths cannot be called
“accidental.”
Moreover,
even if it was a genuine accident, that does not absolve the killer.
Unless you’re Dick Cheney, you cannot shoot someone in the face and then
excuse yourself with a simple “oops, didn’t mean to” just because you
were aiming for a bird.
And
getting at somebody who “deserves it” is no excuse for going through
somebody who doesn’t. If somebody hits your car with a rock, that
doesn’t give you license to run over anybody standing in your way in
order to reach your attacker.
Neither
is it justified to punish non-perpetrators merely for sharing a
nationality with perpetrators. Such “collective punishment” is
antithetical to the individualistic notions of justice that are
essential to the philosophy of liberty.
Libertarians
are well familiar with how pernicious collectivism is when it comes to
domestic affairs. Yet its perniciousness does not stop at national
borders. International collectivist violence is just as pernicious as
the domestic variety. It misaligns incentives and engenders intractable
conflicts just as badly.
Harming
foreigners indiscriminately creates grievance among the victims and/or
their survivors. People don’t like having their wedding parties bombed
by drones. Survivors of such attacks will sometimes seek retaliation.
Those who are young and already on-edge, may take up arms. Those who do
not take up arms may give aid, comfort, or sanction to those who do.
Now
what shape will the retaliation take? The warfare may be conventional
or “asymmetric” (i.e., terrorism). If the victims have the same
collectivist notions of justice that their victimizers had, it will also
involve civilian casualties. Then the “side” of the original attackers
will retaliate over those civilian casualties with still further
indiscriminate violence. Thus war is cyclical and self-perpetuating,
tending toward an ever growing pile of victims.
The
embrace of life, liberty, and property is a universal ethic. These
rights can be held by every individual without encroaching on the like
rights of any other. They are universally applicable to all. On the
other hand, to say that your tribe is so “exceptional” that you may kill
the civilians of another country but nobody may kill the civilians of
your is not an “ethic,” but merely special pleading. Yet, if war’s
acceptance of civilian casualties is to be applied universally, it can
only be an ethic of mutual extermination and universal extinction.
It
is often said that, “eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.”
However, in ancient times “eye for an eye” was actually an advance on
previous customs that facilitated escalating feuds. The point was, “only
an eye for eye”: not your whole family or tribe for an eye. “Eye for an
eye” is not consistent with libertarian principles of restitution, but
it is a lot closer to it than the norms of today that sanction
collateral damage. Actually, “eye for an eye” probably would not make
the whole world blind. But, “All your neighbors’ eyes for an eye” sure
as hell eventually would.
While
war is by character self-perpetuating and self-expanding, the limited,
targeted violence sanctioned by the philosophy of peace and liberty
(self-defense and restitution) is by character self-containing. It
deters aggression by as much as possible “undoing” it. And since it does
not gratuitously create grievance among the innocent, it avoids
engendering violent retaliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment