Like most people, I’m horrified at Gaddafi’s use of terror and violence in Libya. He has distinguished himself as being uncommonly brutal and disarmingly undisguised in the carrying out of what all governments the world over stand to enforce: their monopoly on the use of aggressive force.
What we see here is the essence of the state in action, and this is particularly embarrassing to all other states in the world, since Gaddafi has taken the mask off and told it like it is: he must continue to rule because, well, he rules and therefore he decides what is and is not permitted. Forcing him out is one of those things he does not permit, and so therefore the more you try, the more you risk death. There was peace in Libya so long as everyone obeyed, but bloodshed when they stopped. Here we see the essence of statecraft carried out by pre-modern means.
Now the U.S. and the U.N. are talking about sanctions against Libya and these reportedly would include an “arms embargo, travel restrictions and an asset freeze against Libya.” Now, here we have to stop and think. Sanctions huh? Like those against Iraq that kept Saddam in power for a decade and ending up starving and killing multitudes of children? Like those against Cuba that have been central to Castro’s capacity to rally the public against the United States? The history of sanctions doesn’t exactly testify to their capacity to bring down dictators. It does demonstrate that they backfire, helping the state and hurting the people.
What the Libyan people need right now is not less contact with the world but more: more freedom to travel in and out, more imports of food and medicine, and perhaps even more arms. How would it be possible to structure sanctions in a way that would hurt the regime but not the people? I can’t think of any examples of how that has worked in the past.
{ 37 comments }
But unfortunately the insanity continues. I don’t see how starving the people is going to lead to their freedom.
But when have any sanctions been designed to harm the regime and not the people? Like all government programs, sanctions are designed to better loot the people. I’m sure some could be designed otherwise, but none of the criminal in government want that.
Exactly. The UN is a waste of space; if they’re not going to do anything useful[*], they should just keep out of it. Libyans are saying they don’t want outside “help” anyway — who can blame them!?
It was nice to hear reporters saying that any “statement” the UN security council might make will be “watered down” precisely because “other governments don’t want to set a precedent that could be used against them.” A rare glimpse of the naked face of Statism here.
[*] What would be useful? Suppressing Gaddafi’s air-force strafing and bombing the protesters, and interdiction against foreign mercenaries coming in to kill them (reports 15 plane-loads of Algerian mercenaries arrived last night), would have been helpful, but it’s too late now.
The UN is full of governments and people that are on the same level of Gaddafi. The vast majority are dictators just like he is.
How else do you explain this:
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/12/libya_to_join_un_human_rights_council
?
They are not going to act or do anything forceful. Many would be too horrified to even contemplate it…. HE IS ONE OF THEM. They are only going to turn on one of their own if absolutely necessary.
I feel bad for the Libya folks crying out for help. The poor naive fools. They are on their own.
Well, thousands of people volunteered to go to Spain in the early 30′s to fight the fascists/nacionalists.
Is a single libertarian even considering going to Lybia to fight alongside the rebels?
The Lybian State apparently has no problem in finding hundreds of mercenaries, who can the rebels rely on?
This is like QE2; ruin the capital structure, followed by bogus capital in the form of counterfeit notes. The boneheads at the Federal Reserve say that to solve it more measures need to be taken that will that cause the people to suffer even more.
The economic terrorists in control of imperialism suggest sanctions ‘that cause the people to suffer even more.’
The State is morally bankrupt in every regard!
*sigh* mises.org readers may be interested in this: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122414315249621.html
The author confuses crony capitalism with free markets, as usual, but other than that I don’t see how this is so damning. The “privatization” didn’t work because it didn’t restructure the incentives: It just redistributed lots of money upwards. I’m pretty sure everyone here understands that.
*sigh* Peter, perhaps you should explain what it is you believe in in the comments rather than linking us to some neo marxist article that no one in their right mind will read.
Al-Jazzera is a fairly open media outlet, and the article is easily debunked. Perhaps a leading austrian (but not Ron Paul, for obvious reasons) should take in the task of sending a detailed rebuttal to Al-Jazzera? This would be the [i]ideal[/i] opportunity for libertarians to spread the message to the lybian people.
Murphy would do a pretty good job schooling them.
to augusto:
http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php
Newson,
You caught me again. But I also visit a foreign mises institute, and there, they use brackets for html codes… So I always get confused!
I’m not commenting on what *I* believe, Heman; I’m worrying that Al Jazeera are right about what *the protesters* are thinking.
PS: any “debunking” article would need to appear in Arabic, not English, at the very least.
Translation to Arabic is the least of “our” problems… Finding the person to act as spokesman of libertarianism and finding the right contacts in the arab media are much greater challenges…
Of course that’s what the protesters are thinking. Still, the sanctions will only help to keep Gaddafi in power, and that’s bad for everyone. Well, everyone who isn’t a dictator, that is.
I wonder where Gaddafi’s frozen assets or money eventually end up? Does anyone know the process of how this money is spent or how the assets are distributed? Is it somehow deducted from the country’s external debts? Or will the money be returned to the people or to the newly elected government?
Those calling on sanctions only have to ask one question – what would their own government do if your nation was cut off from a vital resource? Simple, government gets first crack and anything left over gets thrown out to the rest of us. Sanctions only hurt those not in government, and that’s no way to win good will among the population.
IMHO, calling for sanctions is the polite way for the US to say “we want to keep him in power”. I mean, when have they ever had any other effect, ever.
Sanctions are an acknowledgement and defence of the legitmacy of both the regimes they are directed by and those they are applied upon.
Think on it.
Sione
I have to laugh at people spewing about Gaddafi “killing his own people.” First, they’re not his people (if they were, there’d be nothing wrong with killing them, right?!); second: do you think any other government would behave differently, in similar circumstances? I just asked my father that, and he rolled his eyes and said “yes, of course” … really? How did Britain behave when the US wanted independence? Or India? How did the US behave when the southern states wanted independence? Or the Philippines? His eyes went wide and he walked away. If anything, “democratic” governments are even harder to dislodge.
Violence and terror is of no use against people willing to fight and die for freedom. When there’s a will there’s a way and the people have the will to fight Gadhafi bare hands if they have to.
Suppose that most people in his country decided to revolt against Gadhafi and disobey him, what is Gadhafi going to do ? Kill each and everyone of his citizens with his army ?
The end result will be that he will rule a heap of ashes and he will be seen as a tyrannical and violent dictator and shunned by the rest of the world.
Had he used gravity waves weapons, he could have mobilized the entire country into submission.
Suppose that most people in his country decided to revolt against Gadhafi and disobey him, what is Gadhafi going to do ? Kill each and everyone of his citizens with his army ?
Wouldn’t be the first time someone try to do that…
The end result will be that he will rule a heap of ashes and he will be seen as a tyrannical and violent dictator and shunned by the rest of the world.
A tyrant, but one who’s not afraid to kill and one who’s sitting on a huge barrel of oil. I’m pretty sure “the powers” would be willing to negotiate.
Had he used gravity waves weapons, he could have mobilized the entire country into submission.
Mobilized? Or driven away? He detonates one of those, people will try so hard to leave the country, that the empty land will quickly be occupied by foreign powers (either so that they can guarantee the oil supply, or because they don’t want to deal with the mass of refugees).
This, of course, coming from someone who has never held a gun and has no understanding of how armies – or people – work
“Gravity wave weapons”? Someone mentioned the same thing a couple of days ago, so I assume it’s some sort of inside joke…
The reference a few days ago was to a PC game called Halflife… I don’t think the gravity reference here is the same thing.
I fail to see what all these “freedom lovers” have against minding your own business. The essence of freedom is being left alone. That includes fighting your own battles. Really, is that too hard to understand? What’s the difference between butting in there and socialist programs in general?
care to explain yourself? I’m not sure I understand to who you’re directing your criticism.
One point that he might be trying to make (although only he can explain for sure) is that a government, if it has any legitimate function, is to protect the rights of its own citizens, period. For a government like the U.S. to take action and use taxpayer dollars to ‘take out’ Gaddafi exceeds their legitimate function and endorses efforts at U.S. imperialism or ‘exporting’ democracy and other things that libertarians generally dislike.
One could respond, however, that sanctions would impede American citizens from trying to help Libyans by restricting their access to Libyan citizens, on top of any restrictions a tyrant like Gaddafi might create.
Interfering in the affairs of other countries, as a country; or interfering in the affairs of another individual as an individual, is a risky business for both parties. There’s the obvious danger of suffering some harm for the one who interferes; but there’s also the danger to the “aided” party. Very often the benevolent helper has entirely selfish motivations of his own_I’d really say always, but I don’t feel like arguing about it_ which may operate badly against the aided party. The same applies to individuals. Just as an example which I assume everyone knows, consider the parent who “helps” his child so much he produces a cripple incapable of living his own life. Any act which produces dependence is harmful.
But there is still a larger consideration. No one has any “right” to make any demand on me; nor do I have any “right” to make any demand on anyone else. Frost not withstanding, good fences do indeed make good neighbors.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but the outrage against Libya appears to be driven by economic rather than humanitarian concerns.
The US Government, and it puppet, the UN have sat idly by while the oil has been flowing.
If the call for action is driven by humanitarian concerns, why has there been no call for action before.
Why has there been no call for action against, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Somalia, Cuba, Haiti?
Why does the US prop up a despotic regime in Saudi Arabia? Would the US be cheer-leading for the Muslim Brotherhood if they we threatening to take over Saudi Arabia? Or would the question of who controls 10 million barrels of oil per day come into the equation?
Seems to me they were forced to do something to try and keep up the image of benevolent Socialist Big Brother, World Cop.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi240211.html
Sadly some are expressing the ‘revolution’ in Libya is nothing more than a fringe group (NFSL) that was founded by the CIA seizing power by giving misleading accounts to the press. Combine this with war mongering Obama giving a virtual threat of an invasion and it is apparent that the rise of this CIA funded group is:
1) Another example of a CIA funded Frankenstein causing blowback.
or
2) An expertly engineered takeover of Libya and it’s oil wealth.
I can – South Africa, where sanctions were an key element in isolating that country during the apartheid era. That isolation was essential in bringing the country to the point where the Afrikaners understood that the game was up and were prepared to negotiate.
As a South African I remember it all well and many of the arguments mentioned above are familiar.
The same is true for Zimbabwe; and the outcome – that Zimbabwe is essentially a failed state – should not be confused with the imposition of sanctions. Had South Africa, or Zimbabwe carried on, like Libya, for decades without a legitimate government, the outcome could ultimately have been worse.
What is your definition of “… a legitimate government…”?
Rhodesia sanctions have given way to Zimbabwe sanctions. A racist Rhodesian regime gave way to a racist and genocidal Mugabe regime. Trade sanctions don’t work …otherwise capitalism would have naturally spread to Cuba by now, and market forces would have pushed Castro aside.
Get a copy of Qaddafi’s Green Book for a peak at his lunatic socialist dream.
Well, Britons and Americans have accepted his blood money for nationalizing assets, committing acts of war, and various other crimes against humanity. The UK even allowed a policewoman to be gunned down from the Libyan Embassy in London back in the 80′s. So they will bring “justice to Libya.”
south africa’s apartheid regime wasn’t necessarily brought down by the sanctions imposed against her:
http://mises.org/daily/1501
Bla Bla as usual.
But first: Who made who?
Comments on this entry are closed.