link to original reddit post by /u/MyShitpostingAcc
I write this with the assumption that you agree that the best way to reduce state coercion and increase individual liberty is to eliminate (or at least massively reduce) the state itself. We’ll refer to this concept as “libertarianism” with the understanding that it’s a big tent. And much of our discussion is in regards to local or ‘domestic’ issues, because that is how the state has manifested itself.
But what about inter-state relations? Even if you believe that the state should not exist as a concept, how would a non-state interact with a cartel of states in regards to international relations, specifically security and defense? Economically, this question is easy to answer: have no authority with the means to place restrictions on the ability of any businesses or individuals to voluntarily create deals. What happens once armies, bombs, and cyberwarfare come into the equation?
I do not believe it controversial to say that the current world order of authoritarian nation-states toying with their citizens like chess pieces is a travesty. It is made worse when you remember that nine of these nation-states have nuclear weapons. It is a travesty, but it is our reality. The statist’s idea of “reducing barriers” is to create an even larger super-state in the EU, whose demands for unique international recognition are frequently met. Nation-states have formed significant defense treaties with each other. Should one or two states be replaced with a voluntarist society, the cartel of states would act with force to stop disruption of a world order that benefits them. Barring a cataclysmic world event (possibly caused by one of these states), this is the “world stage.”
For this reason, I strongly agreed with this quote from The Machinery of Freedom in which David D. Friedman writes:
I do not approve of any government, but I will tolerate one so long as the only other choice is another, worse government. Meanwhile, I would do my best to develop voluntary institutions that might eventually take over the business of defense. That is precisely what I meant when I said, near the beginning of this book, that I thought all government functions were divided into two classes—those we could do away with today and those we hope to be able to do away with tomorrow.
Before going deeper into more specific foreign policy concepts, I wanted to first acknowledge two realities about this topic: the first is that current circumstances on foreign policy are going to look very different based on the nation-state. A Czech or Irish or Venezuelan libertarian has an easier time resolving some of these challenges than an American or British libertarian. Rightly or wrongly, the USA has more fingers in more pies than other nation-states, and that makes untangling them a more delicate process. Second, the concept of organized militaries is anathema to our values as libertarians. Militaries are authoritarian, hierarchical, and purposefully minimize individuality.
So how do libertarians settle the apparent contradiction of a voluntarist, stateless society inside a world order that rejects the concept and instead uses coercion and authority to levy force arbitrarily?
Not only does Friedman title the chapter from which I quoted above, “National Defense: the hard problem” but he also is very conciliatory in accepting the world as it exists today rather than how he would like it to be. However I do not want to speak for Friedman too much, as I am neither him nor have I read all of his works extensively. What I have seen advocated by Friedman and other thinkers is a non-interventionist foreign policy; one that does not entangle itself in the affairs of other nation-states and certainly doesn’t use force to achieve a political aim.
This is certainly a morally defensible position and one I believe is very workable, especially for a state that has not become entangled in “power projection.” But is it a universal maxim?
Hypothetically, let us assume that there are nation-states within the established world order that lean toward some libertarian principles such as unrestricted speech, ownership of private property, low or no taxation, etc. Presumably the open trade and free association of peoples within these states would result in strong economic and cultural relations. Should one of these country’s neighbors act aggressively and declare war, invade territory or violate the non-aggression principle of that state’s citizens, is it automatically wrong to use military force to (try to) prevent a more authoritarian, statist regime dominating one which shares many of your values?
If we can begrudgingly accept that we have inherited a statist system that will not permit liberty for all peoples at the same time based on political boundaries, then any libertarian foreign policy needs to adapt to that reality. When bandits come to your neighbor’s property, do we refuse to come to their aid because the state provides corrupt law enforcement or unjustly defines property boundaries?
But the state isn’t you, and another state is not your friend or your neighbor. A state infringing on liberty and / or making terrible decisions is the expectation rather than an anomaly, and Friedman uses the Munich Accord as prime example of this type of foreign policy failure. Our frameworks must assume that those making foreign policy decisions are incompetent.
There is a second, perhaps even more significant issue with the concept of a libertarian state wherein the domestic apparatus has been mostly disassembled and the military is the remaining component. An organized hierarchical system not only possesses the means to use violence against the people but also may seek to gain more authority and money rather than liberty – the state is reduced but the most authoritarian aspect remains.
And I believe this brushes up closely to a different issue within libertarian debate and thought. Many of us have researched so much and built a series of beliefs we believe to be morally consistent and will result in a better life for all peoples. But when we see small schisms with another libertarian’s philosophy and our own, we argue. Intensely. We subject each other to purity tests and shun those whose view of libertarianism is not in line with our own. I have had my own outlooks on foreign policy called “disgusting” and “unwelcome” by people, even though they are neither expansionist nor imperial. If even the foremost thinkers in anarcho-capitalism cede that this is an incredibly difficult topic within the philosophy, why does the community not permit more discussion on how to resolve these challenges, be they in regards to current events or wider concepts?
Pragmatism is a recurring point of tension among us. One only has to look at the mixed opinion of Rand Paul to know that pursuing some libertarian causes within an authoritarian framework does not win over all of us. Is it better to provide legitimacy to the state by working within it rather than discussing theory outside of it?
Just as with foreign policy, I have very few answers to these questions. But I am confident that good faith discussion between us with similar goals is more productive than shunning those who believe in different approaches to the same aim. Life, ethics, and (geo)politics are all messy topics with shades of gray rather than black or white. If we do want our lives to be our own and pursue the cause of liberty, we must engage with these issues and not retreat to idealistic theory, or regress to other theories’ flawed and failed answers.