There’s a scene in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock that I find useful at times like this. Dr. McCoy is trying to arrange covert passage to a star system declared off-limits by the Federation Council. McCoy asks an alien pilot what it would cost to transport him there. The alien replies that since the system is “restricted,” it would take money and “many permits.” McCoy replies, “There aren’t going to be any damn permits! How can you get a permit to do a damn illegal thing?!”
This is basically my reaction to all the hand-wringing over Barack Obama’s decision to attack Libya without first obtaining a congressional declaration of war. Even if Obama had gotten a “permit” from Congress, would his actions be any less illegal? Not if you subscribe to any variant of libertarian ethics.
The conservative assumption is that the right to declare war is a “sovereign” power inherent in all monopoly governments. The libertarian ethic cautions that only individuals have rights; there are no legitimate “sovereign” powers that go beyond these individual rights. The group has no more right or authority than the individual. The metaphorical construct called the “United States of America” has no greater or lesser right to commit aggression against Libya then I do.
Even the Obama acolytes aren’t pressing the case that the Libya attack is self-defense. They claim this is a case of protecting “democracy” or the Libyan rebels, or making Libya’s ruling gang accountable under “international law.” And I suppose if Obama wanted to raise some volunteers, at his own expense, to go to Libya and join the rebellion against the ruling gang, I couldn’t really object. But Obama claims some sort of “sovereign” right to not only attack Libya, but to force others — the American taxpayers — to finance and support the campaign without their consent.
And merely obtaining a congressional “declaration” of war would not, under the libertarian ethic, constitute “consent.” Again, Congress has no more “right” to commit aggression against Libya then either Obama or myself. The conservative will point to the Constitution and cite its authorization for Congress to declare war as Gospel. But I don’t see what a 220-year-old document ratified as a political compromise between long-dead individuals has to do with our present situation. Lest we forget, the original Constitution passively recognized the forcible ownership of human beings by others. It was not a document predicated on the libertarian concept of individual rights.
Nor was it, as many seem to believe, a contract binding in perpetuity. Contracts can certainly outlive their original parties — but only if the successor parties grant meaningful consent. The Constitution was simply thrust upon the successors by force, who were given no affirmative right in whether to continue its terms. Yes, the Constitution grants limited rights of review and amendment — but no right of exit. If I inherit the shares of a corporation, I am free to sell or abandon them. The Constitution does not permit this. It binds all successors forever to its terms. It’s hard to imagine a more un-libertarian principle. (Indeed, the whole notion of binding a population and its successors in perpetuity, without right of exit, goes back to the very slavery concept supported by the original document!)
Even if one could somehow prove the Constitution’s legitimacy — and even some libertarian scholars have attempted to do that, unsuccessfully in my view — that still does not prove that a congressional declaration of war against Libya is legal or ethical. Again, there’s the obvious lack of any self-defense justification. There’s also the problem of the United Nations. The present conflict started when the United Nations declared a “no-fly” zone within Libya. The US and its allies claim the right to engage in military action in order to enforce the UN’s decrees.
This is nothing new. Most US military actions in the post-World War II era have come in response to UN decrees, including both Iraq wars. In 1990, the elder George Bush reluctantly obtained congressional “authorization” for the first Iraq war long after the UN had given Bush what he claimed was ample justification to attack. Clearly, Bush saw UN approval as primary and congressional approval as secondary (and perhaps optional). That set a clear precedent for Bush’s successors, including Obama.
The thing is, there’s really nothing remarkable about this. Some will complain that the UN is not a legitimate authority. The rebuttal is that the United States ratified a treaty creating the UN, and any treaty ratified by the US is binding law in perpetuity (like the Constitution itself). The counterargument is that the UN operates so far outside the Constitution’s structure as to render it illegitimate. That’s correct — but so what? Congress has repeatedly handed over bits and pieces of its authority to unelected bodies operating outside the Constitution’s stated parameters. We call them “regulatory agencies.” The UN just happens to be a regulatory agency that includes a lot of non-US members.
Let’s take my friends at the Federal Trade Commission. The Constitution never contemplated such an agency. The FTC is not bound by constitutional norms of due process: no jury trials, no impartial judges, “guilty unless proven innocent” in most cases. The FTC has even repeatedly asserted its “right” to act against the wishes of the elected president and his appointees. Yet most people who accept the legitimacy of the Constitution also accept the FTC’s legitimacy, largely based on the fact that the government’s own courts have decreed it so. I wonder how many of those people are now carping over the illegitimacy of the UN’s direction of US military power.
Anytime you try to create “sovereignty” beyond the consent of the individual, you’re going to have these problems. The “legitimacy” of various types of government bodies becomes, as Ayn Rand would say, a floating abstraction. What makes a UN or FTC decree any more or less valid than a congressional declaration? As Dr. McCoy observed, you can’t get permission to do something that’s already illegal. And by libertarian standards, the Libya attack is illegal irrespective of who signed the piece of paper.
{ 49 comments }
Thanks, good article.
“But I don’t see what a 220-year-old document ratified as a political compromise between long-dead individuals has to do with our present situation.”
Be careful, you are following a slippery slope here. Liberals could say the same thing about the 2nd Amendment or even the first with their fairness doctrine and political rectitude etc. I am so proud of the constitution that I am ready to go to war if congress decides so.
I am in favor of the intervention in Libya and it could be that Iraq’s WMD’s have been shipped to Libya.
“Be careful, you are following a slippery slope here. Liberals could say the same thing about the 2nd Amendment or even the first with their fairness doctrine and political rectitude etc.”
Because then they wouldn’t implement gun control or otherwise try to limit gun ownership. (Oh wait, they already have.)
The point is that constitutional authorization doesn’t change the inherent morality of the situation. If the constitution authorized me to kill whoever I wanted, it does not follow that my killing of, say, Nancy Pelosi is moral. The mistake that a large number of neo-conservatives make is confusing legality and morality. It doesn’t matter if Congress declares war, for it is immoral for the US to get involved in this matter.
And no, we are not the world’s policemen. That concept is absurd to begin with, and is nowhere to be found in the constitution.
How ironic that the American Revolution would have failed if the French had have minded their own business?
Maybe that attempt at secession from England would have failed, but who’s to say there wouldn’t have been another? For example, before Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836, there was a previous failed attempt that happened in 1826.
I’d say the point still stands, non-intervention is the best course for societies around the world. France was constantly involved in wars decades after their independence, whereas the newly formed US confederation, while imperfect and not without problems, was largely peaceful in contrast. As we all know, war takes away valuable resources that could be used to serve the populace. I’d say based on that fact, the life of the average person in the US was better than in France.
How ironic that Americans who revolted against a monarch with an effective 10% income tax replaced it with a legislative rabble with an effective 40-50% income tax.
To be fair, that didn’t happen for another 137 years. But sadly, it is true that one empire was rejected for an eventual building of another.
“I am in favor of the intervention in Libya and it could be that Iraq’s WMD’s have been shipped to Libya.”
Facepalm and Dismay.
Every post you’re tripping balls and now this?
GTFO
The UN was started by the USA, it is the mostly funded by the USA and it is necessary to establish a world wide solidarity. I uphold the security council. I am not for isolationism.
There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Think Star Trek’s Prime Directive.
It’s not aggression against Libya, it’s aggression against Moammar Gadhafi’s violent crackdown on his own civilians. We can’t just stand idle and watch the butchery.
Really? Are we to get involved in every scuffle among the 194 other nations on the earth? We’ve ignored other conflicts on numerous other occasions. What makes Libya special? Why do we only get involved in conflicts where “our” oil is at stake?
Read Jefferson.
People more educated on foreign policy will be able to explain to you the need to pick battles wisely. For that it is necessary to understand the situation first. Which is what I hope they are doing here. Understanding the situation and wisely picking their battles.
“People more educated on foreign policy will be able to explain to you the need to pick battles wisely.”
You’re making assumptions on my knowledge of foreign policy. Please don’t. Just because we do not agree on a point, it does not follow that I’m uneducated.
You’ve totally ignored my questions, which were not rhetorical.
“Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we presume not to prescribe or censure their course.” -Thomas Jefferson
There are two parties fighting each other, one believes in things that are similar to what you believe and has your sympathies. The other does not. If he has his way, he will come after you for who you are, just like he went after your friend whom you refused to help. But if you help your friend, your common enemy is vanquished.
You are not living in a vacuum that other’s problems are not your problems. There is no better indication of that the price of oil at the gas pump.
Abhilash Nambiar, you are still avoiding my questions. Why won’t you answer them?
Here they are again so you don’t have to scroll up:
What makes Libya special? Why do we only get involved in conflicts where “our” oil is at stake?
And increasing gas prices is not a valid reason to use Tomahawk missiles on any population. This subsidization of the oil cartels by American taxpayers only leads to distorted signals in the market and delays energy independence.
Is ‘our’ oil at stake here? I was under the impression that it has been decades since, Libyan oil was available in the world market. How can what was never available be at stake? Besides there is no guarantee that if the rebels win, oil will automatically flow to the US.
You are under the wrong impression. Here are the facts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/libya-oil-idUSLDE72E23I20110315
The use of “our” is done flippantly.
So, the question again: What makes Libya so special? Why intervene there and not in the countless conflicts elsewhere? Why is it that the USA only seems to intervene in the affairs of countries with significant oil reserves?
Right, now that I have established with your help that it is not about the oil, the question still remains, what makes Libya so special? I can only say what I have said before – people more educated on foreign policy will be able to explain to you. It would be pointless to speculate over what their understanding of the situation is.
I looked at your link. Here is what it has about the customers:
China and Germany abstained on the vote for military action in Libya. Now does that put a dent on your war for oil theory or not?
Abhilash: Why won’t you answer my question? I have put it to you several times. Your evasion shows your weak footing here.
One more time:
What makes Libya so special? Why intervene there and not in the countless conflicts elsewhere?
Reply is above.
When oil supplies to Italy, Germany, France, China, and the United States drop, oil prices increase. Simple economics. Those countries have to compete for fewer barrels on the open market, giving them an incentive to stabilize the situation in Libya. Saudi Arabia is trying to fill the gap, but speculators are uncertain how long this can last, and this also results in price increases. You have also ignored that Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.
Italy, which gets most of Libya’s oil, is in and offering air bases to enforce the no-fly zone. Germany is only abstaining because they are stretched too thin, having the third largest troop presence in Afghanistan. The UK, Greece, and Spain get 19% of Libya’s oil. Europe and the West would like to see Libyan oil production back at three million barrels a day. That won’t happen as long as Muammar Gaddafi is in power.
You have not proven your case that this is not about oil. In fact, until I provided evidence to the contrary, you thought Libyan oil was not on the market. It has been for about four years.
Your deference to foreign policy experts shows shows your lack of understanding. I’m surprised you’re advocating intervention without understanding the “why”.
Does it not seem a little far-fetched to say that US is invading Libya because Italy, Germany, France and China needs oil? It seems as if you decided that it is all about oil and then fit whatever fact you can find is used to support that conclusion. Consider also the fact that conflicts have their own way of developing and there is no way of knowing who eventually is going to control the oil resources.
“Does it not seem a little far-fetched to say that US is invading Libya because Italy, Germany, France and China needs oil?”
It’s not just the US; it’s the UN. The US was resisting then gave into pressure from its allies. I do not think it is far fetched at all, given the corporatist nature of our government and its too-cozy ties to the oil industry. Besides, we’re not invading. We’re firing cruise missiles at the cost of tens of billions of dollars. Have you not been paying attention? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/pressure-building-on-obama-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya/1
Do you really believe we invaded Iraq to give them democracy? Wake up.
I think the war on Iraq was most likely oil related. Most likely Saddam’s attempt to quote oil prices in Euros instead of the US dollar which would have ended the dollar dominance in the world market. But the case for the Libyan war being an oil war is much weaker.
Perhaps it is weaker, but I can think of no other reason why we’re involved, and you have provided no alternatives. Even if one proffers human rights as an explanation, that begs the question why we have evaded getting involved in other internal conflicts and civil wars where dissidents are killed in high numbers such as Darfur, Tibet, Congo, Rwanda, and on.
There is no constitutional role for the United States to be an international peacekeeper. We should stay out of civil wars. When we intervene in other countries’ internal matters, it’s usually to protect ours and our allies’ economic interests, and the blowback, or unintended consequences, is not worth it.
Finally, from an economic standpoint, we simply cannot afford to intervene. In case you haven’t noticed, our debt is 100% of our GDP, and if you factor in unfunded liabilities, we’re likely headed to default and a currency crisis. Like Rome, we have devalued our currency to finance our empire, and like Rome, if we continue down this path, our empire will collapse.
I am ok with collapsing empires as long as liberty reigns.
I’m OK with “smashing empires” as well, but “liberty reigning” is not likely when this is the method
As Butler Shaffer put it, “you won’t be free because you’re rid of government, you’ll get rid of government when you are free”
Does it not seem a little far-fetched to say that US is invading Libya because Italy, Germany, France and China needs oil?
Not at all. If the crusaders can ally with al Qaeda, dogs, rats, and cockroaches to drug the Libyans and attack their much-loved Col. Gaddafi, why can’t it be because Italy, Germany, France and China need oil?
I think Abhilash is right in that this is not a realpolitik play for oil. The ex-hippies in the Obama administration simply do not think in such terms. Rather, this is just the Democratic wing of the US Trotskyite movement realizing their long-held dream of using the military to advance social democratic revolution.
More simple than that.
It’s about votes.
Dondero?
OK, you find the Constitution inadequate.
Not-a-Problem at all … since all 3 branches of the federal government routinely ignore it. {e.g., Libya attack}
{But somehow you find enduring wisdom from an obscure scene in a totally fictional, silly Hollywood screenplay ??}
If you think the President/Pentagon are performing “immoral” acts — what is your proposed corrective action ?
I laughed out loud at the absurdity of your final question. The answer, obvious to all, is “Stop performing immoral acts.” I sometimes think that some people believe a solution cannot be a solution unless it involves complexity of some sort. In this case, no complexity is required. If you are thief, stop robbing. If you are a murderer, stop killing. If you are committing the blood and treasury of your citizenry to a conflict in which you have no moral right, stop committing the blood and treasury.
If punitive and corrective action is required against thieves, murderers, and elected plunderers, they can be addressed, but the first step is always to stop the immorality.
I believe the analogy to this situation would be if Oliva were a tenant to a very wealthy private landlord who has his own army and decides he’s going to help Libya. Similarly, just as Oliva can search for a new landlord so too can he renounce his citizenship and leave the U.S.A. for good to a country where the government is non-interventionist.
The government is a not a landlord.
What is really ironic is that the US is now backing Al Qaeda in Libya – it is quite amazing how a group can be transformed from vilified “terrorists” into “freedom fighters” when it becomes convenient. I wonder how many Presidential pardons will be forthcoming?
What? Have you been drinking the Nescafe meant for Libya?
This is not at all that surprising.
Remember the Shah
Remember Marcos
Remember Manuel Noriega
Remember Saddam Hussein
All most favored dictators until it came time to throw them under the bus.
Very interesting. I guess I part ways with so-called pure “Libertarian ethics”, with these views.
I believe sovereignty as a nation — its geography, assets, resources — is needed to sustain a free and libertarian nation. I believe some order and structure, as defined in our founding documents, is also required. I also believe the foundational principles, as defined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, laid down the foundation for the greatest nation that has ever existed in human history. I also believe Congress should have the power to authorize War, when Constitutional conditions are met — when an actual or imminent threat to the nation exists — to be able to protect the nation as a whole from extinction. As a representative form of government, I believe the individual citizens are responsible to vote for those representatives who “represent” their views, and as such, are able to decide, within the Constitutional framework, when we need to make War on another country.
Common sense dictates no nation can survive, as such, without the ability to provide for its common defense. Clearly, a common defense cannot be efficiently provided by a military of completely sovereign individuals, as we know from leadership reality, organization and function are required. This must come through authority and responsibility. Even if this were hypothetically possible, we are where we are — the United States of America, we HAVE a Constitution, we have a system of checks and balances, we are Citizens of this country, we have a sovereign nation defined by its borders — and, as such, we are not in a situation where we can test this hypothesis. Therefore, any discussion of what else may be is rather mute when discussing the current fix of our POTUS unilaterally serving the U.N., and not the Citizens of the USA!
We have created the United States of America as a sovereign nation. Although the individual is endowed with inalienable rights and liberty, without some form of government to provide for the common defense and basic governance, including legal and legislative structure, by definition, the “nation” would not exist. Why? Its geography would be subsumed by other “sovereign” nations, and its infrastructure would crumble, in reality.
I believe the perpetuity of foundational principles of a nation, are essential, or they most assuredly will evaporate into non-existence over time.
So, although the notion of a nation only consisting of its completely sovereign citizens, and no other sovereignty beyond this, is novel, it is even more idealistic, and more unrealistic than socialism or communism.
One can take an ideal, out of context of a complete, working and sustainable system, and imagine its merits. Yet, one needs a complete system of government for a nation to exist, by definition. Therefore, the concept of complete, isolated, pure sovereignty of an individual is unsustainable as part of a viable, working government. By definition, if all individuals are sovereign and can self-determine, without respect to a nations laws, then a nation does not exist.
Again, since we DO have a U.S. Constitution, and it DOES provide for rules of engagement, the common sense and honorable thing to do is for our elected officials to now act within the framework of the Constitution, not excuse behaviors today based on the lack of adherence to the Constitution, or misguided lockstep with the U.N., in the past.
Clearly, a nation must “create ‘sovereignty’ beyond the consent of the individual” to become a nation. Otherwise, you have a collection of millions of individual self-determining one-person sovereign entities that function in chaos. Again, an ideal only in theory, not achievable in practice (try it with a small group, or even a small company … chaos).
Therefore — and if I am repeating myself please excuse same as its hard with a rapidly written response and this small scroll window to see all previous references so I feel this is rambling and repeating (need a white board and a glass of wine) — but to be clear — I believe we need to authorize — via the individual citizen’s elected officials — the COTUS — a military action such as creating a no-fly zone and attacking Libya … which is, an act of War.
Am I missing something with this piece?
This is not at all surprising.
Remember the Shah
Remember Marcos
Remember Manuel Noriega
Remember Saddam Hussein
All most favored dictators until it came time to throw them under the bus.
The following statements in quotes were posted here by FREEDOM FIGHTER. I can’t tell if he is pulling my leg, or is proudly exhibiting the kind of thinking that government schooling plus government propaganda can produce.
” I am so proud of the constitution that I am ready to go to war if congress decides so. I am in favor of the intervention in Libya and it could be that Iraq’s WMD’s have been shipped to Libya.”
“It’s not aggression against Libya, it’s aggression against Moammar Gadhafi’s violent crackdown on his own civilians. We can’t just stand idle and watch the butchery.”
“The UN was started by the USA, it is the mostly funded by the USA and it is necessary to establish a world wide solidarity. I uphold the security council. I am not for isolationism.”
“It’s not aggression against Libya, it’s aggression against Moammar Gadhafi’s violent crackdown on his own civilians. We can’t just stand idle and watch the butchery.”
David C., you ask if you are missing something with your piece. My answer is yes, and you are missing a great deal. Start with the fact that “we” didn’t found the nation–neither you nor I. What you are missing is the wisdom of Lysander Spooner, who long ago saw the constitution, the nation and its wars for what they really are. Mises.org recently published a piece by Spooner entitled “No Treason, No. 1,” that logically contradicts virtually everything you say in your comment. I hope you will read it. Here is the link:http://mises.org/daily/4723/No-Treason-no-1.
Although there may be some value, I guess, in stating the obvious, that ” ‘we’ didn’t found the nation”, I’m not seeing that value at this point. Main point, since I live here and am an American, and America IS a sovereign country, or at least it used to be, I see no point in debating what “could have been” or “what could be”, with regards to current wreckless (yes and in the past too) use of our Military. We have a Constitution and amendments that address War Powers. Clearly, this POTUS is not adhering to the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the War Powers Act, in my opinion, in his act of War against Libya. We need to work with the facts and realities that exist now to address this emergent misuse of American military power and resources. I will read the document you recommended. I look forward to seeing how one document can “contradict virtually everything” I stated.
David C> The main reason for calling the Spooner article to your attention is that I think he does a marvelous job of dispelling the notion that th US government is a legitimate, constitutional, and as you say, sovereign government. I personally do not recognize the United States as a sovereign country. The only Sovereign I recognize is God, as I understand Him (or Her). And my understanding of God is that He never intended men to rule other men. In my view, the government of the US, like essentially all other governments, is a criminal organization that relies on force and violence to collect taxes without which it could not exist, and that is stealing. Furthermore, by initiating force and coercion for the purpose of taxation, government introduces violence into otherwise peaceful human relations, and I do not doubt the aphorism: violence begets violence. This, more than anything else, explains why governments are such deadly institutions.
Ned… I believe I understand your views, generally, and I appreciate the article reference. Still haven’t read yet, as I want to print it out and underline, etc. Maybe this evening.
Will advise post read re thoughts.
In general, I feel I understand the perspective of the “evils and illegitimacy of governments” overall. I believe, however, since you referenced “God”, that just governance and nations, is a “divine Institution”, as evidenced in the Old Testament and New Testaments of the Bible.* Just as the inalienable rights of individuals are granted by God, not man or governments.
My view is that, while we may have a less than ideal government, I believe one is necessary, in the real world. Certainly, in an ideal world, with no evil… no Hitlers, Stalins, Mussolinis, Ahmadinejads, Hussains or Bin Ladens, I can see the concept of each man living a ‘sovereign existence’ outside of a need for an organized government, to be possible.
Yet, in the real world, where men and women have what I perceive to be evil motivations and designs, governance is not only necessary for survival, but, I believe it is necessary to create an environment in which good can thrive, through basic laws and defense, at a minimum.
Furthermore, I believe governance – elected by the individual citizens “We the People”, should be kept to its absolute minimum requirements.
Yes, I realize one can argue the hypothetical and theoretical absence of government and its virtues. However, in my opinion, it will never happen while humans are on this earth. Why? Mankind will always have those with evil machinations to enslave and dominate others (take Islam and Shariah Law, for example, and its designs on a global caliphate). And, an individual will never be prepared to defend themselves from a well organized, well armed, and well governed enemy and their militia (such as Communist China, Russia, global Islam, etc.). As such, any group of individuals who seek to live outside of a nation to protect their interests, will be ultimately subsumed by some national or other entity, intolerant of that group’s views, or desirous of that group’s property and treasure, etc.
So, if we accept this as true, and I realize you and many others are have unique opinions, I believe we need a basic government structure. I am not an anarchist.
I do believe, however, we need to continue to debate these issues, and push for the least governance requirement possible, to attain the required administration of law and insurance of protection of our inalienable rights, agreed, given to us by God, not government itself.
I do believe we have a great deal of evil in our government, and any government, as they are run by people and many people, sadly, regardless their guise, have evil motis operandi.
As such, a nation’s rise and fall can be directly attributed to the sum total of its capacity to self govern. As a nation’s aggregate capacity for prosperity (health, happiness and wealth, etc.) declines, so its ability to govern itself from a position of strength, moves to a position of weakness, and moves towards decline or extinction. I believe we are in this stage in America at this time.
A nation (or any entity) that experiences prosperity, ultimately can become arrogant, only seeing other’s ‘errors’ and inadequacies from their perspective, and not seeing their own errors and inadequacies, forgetting what foundation enabled prosperity in the first place, and then becomes subjective, makes decisions from a position of weakness. When aggregate decisions of any entity – be that an individual, family, city, business or country – are consistently made subjectively from a position of weakness, disaster results. Ultimately, without recovery of a “capacity for prosperity”, any group will self-destruct, or be taken over by those in a position of strength.
Conversely, an entity that experiences disaster, ultimately learns humility, and learns to make decisions from an objective position of strength and confidence with humility. This results in good decisions from a position of strength. When aggregate decisions of any entity – be that an individual, family, city, business or country – are consistently made objectively from a position of strength, prosperity results. And the cycle repeats. This is human nature, and the nature of the rise and fall of any entity.
With the former in mind, from the founding of America, there have been both evil and good forces at work. And yes, many actions taken by our government have not been without their evil motivations of poor, arrogant leaders.
However, as compared to any other government in history, America has been a beacon of hope and light for good. And, I firmly believe that **if** the aggregate “We the People” will act with individual responsibility, from a position of confidence with humility, and make good decisions from a position of strength, that America can continue to be the best that man can create. If they do not, America will be doomed.
Without America, what then? What is the alternative to America? Anarchy? No government? How will that alternative exist in today’s realities? Can we get all government’s in the world, and their peoples, to exist only as individuals – sans government – without their national governments to protect their cultures, their unique beliefs, their property, their borders? If we cannot do this, then, existing as sovereign individuals outside of a government to provide legal and military structure, will result in our slavery. If small groups of individuals, meeting to agree on any plan, erupt in argument and disagreement, and yes, even in violence, how do will we propose America exist in peace and prosperity, without some level of governance?
If we believe any level of governance is required, then a working government is required. Even if this government is minimalist, who decides? Who determines what is enough, or not enough governance? A central committee? You? Me? Property owners only? Anyone over 18? You see, once you start down the path of needing governance, a Constitution is required. And, a belief system is required. Values are required? Whose beliefs? Whose values system? Again, this is where the genius of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are miracles of modern governance.
This is important – from the founding of America – it is our arrogance and resulting failure as a people, to understand this value, to protect it, and to execute it with integrity, that is the danger. It is not the failure of the document itself or the principles of limited but effective and just government.
Having said this, clearly I believe some form of governance is not only inspired by God, but is required to protect (not give) the inalienable rights and liberties granted by God. This, is the blessing called America.
I hope we can stand together and become humble, with confidence it that which we have been blessed, and reclaim America’s greatness. I do not believe it is possible, rational or logical, to exist sans some form of governance. Furthermore, and most important, this is not the reality which we find remotely possible to entertain today, in any case.
Again, I appreciate your thinking and those of others who debate and push the cause of human freedom and liberty.
* Notes on “Biblical Principle of Nationalism”
1) Definition
a) A nation is a defined as a group of people or peoples who live in a defined territory and are organized under a single government.
b) According to the bible, nations are established by God in their respective geographical locales. Hence, nations are a Divine institution (Acts 17:26).
c) Individual nations provide order and exercise rule over a segment of the human race.
d) In addition to the rise, God controls the fall or destruction of individual nations (Isa. 40:21-24, 41:2, 44:7; Dan. 2:21, 4:33-36).
2) Security and protection of the nation
a) Inside the nation, certain evil types seek to prey on the innocent (Prov. 1:10-19).
b) A primary function of the government of a nation is protect its citizens from criminals and punish those that violate the law (Deut. 16:18, cf. Deut. 17:13, 19:15-20, Rom 13:2-4).
c) If a government fails to properly punish those who violate the law, then criminals are not deterred from committing crime (cf. Eccles. 8:11).
d) In facing external enemies, a nation with formidable military forces will deter other aggressive nations.
3) The believer and the nation
a) The adjusted believer recognizes that authorities on any level do not exist apart from the will of God (Rom. 13:1).
b) The believer is to pray for his national leaders and authorities (1 Tim. 2:1-3).
c) Sound doctrine doesn’t advocate revolution, conspiracy, assassinations, etc.
d) The believer is to be a loyal subject of his nation and is to abide by its laws (1 Peter 2:12-15, cf. Rom. 13:7).
David C, I want to thank you for your very considerate response, which certainly shows that you put considerable thought into it, and is evidence that this is a subject about which you care and have studied in some depth. I do want to respond to some of your points. Before I do that, I want to say that I think your position in general would find support from many of the regular bloggers here at Mises. However, I think it would also be contested by even more folks who like me have come around to the position of anarchy from that of minarchy, which seems to be your position. I will try to address your points in the order presented.
The proposition that government is a Divinely instituted or ordained institution is disputed by passages in the Old and New Testaments. (e.g. 1 Kings, wherein God tells Samuel that the Jews’ desire for a king (human government) is a rejection of His role as their lawgiver. In Luke 4, when the devil tempts Jesus by offering him all the glory and authority of all the kingdoms of the earth because they have been given to him (presumably by God) to give to whoever he chooses, Jesus does not dispute this facet of the devil’s contention. There is much more, but rather than get into it here I will just direct your attention to a rather long essay I contributed to that is on the web. It is entitled, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, and can be found here: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html)
Regarding your argument that government is necessary as long as there is evil in the world: To prove your point you name six evil individuals. May I point out to you that five of the six were or are heads of governments in whose name they perpetrated their evils. Without the power of their governments the bastards could never have slaughtered as many innocent people as they did. And the one non-head of state on your list, Bin Laden, for all the people he is responsible for killing, his victims constitute a mere, tiny fraction of the numbers that each one of the others slaughtered. Your examples make my case: evil men are induced to grasp for the reins of State by the power governments afford them to do evil as heads of state. The very best book on this issue that I’ve ever read is entitled DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by R. J. Rummel (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM). To me it seems incontestable: the most potent weapon in the hands of evil people is the State with all of its accumulated means and methods of torture and mass murder.
David, you said this: “I believe it is necessary to create an environment in which good can thrive, through basic laws and defense, at a minimum.” I would argue that governments do not create anything. That creating is the province of God, and his instrument for creating an environment in which good can thrive is the individual and his or her human family. The governments of the world, including the U.S., often do their level best to destroy God’s handiwork–the family. Among the most impoverished citizens of the U.S., who have in general been those made most dependent on government, the family is often the weakest and in many cases entirely absent–destroyed, I would argue, by the kindly ministrations of the evil State.
David, you say: “Yes, I realize one can argue the hypothetical and theoretical absence of government and its virtues. However, in my opinion, it will never happen while humans are on this earth.” May I point out to you that the first abolitionists who argued the hypothetical and theoretical abolition of slavery and its “virtues” met with the exactly same sense of disbelief in the vast majority of people that you exhibit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
David, you argued: “However, as compared to any other government in history, America has been a beacon of hope and light for good. And, I firmly believe that **if** the aggregate “We the People” will act with individual responsibility, from a position of confidence with humility, and make good decisions from a position of strength, that America can continue to be the best that man can create. If they do not, America will be doomed.”
What beacon of light was it for the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo and Dresden, for example, who were incinerated by U.S. military forces striking without warning from the air in violation of the international rules of war. (The idiotic concept of “rules of war” is an example of how horribly stupid people become when they become government leaders and officials.) If America is or ever was “the best that man can create,” I want no part of it and would encourage you to look to the wisdom of Jesus for the possibility of something better.
David, the balance of your argument is predicated on your inability to conceive of a world without government nor even a smaller geographical area without formal government. However, there are many anarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, etc. who believe otherwise and have written many thoughtful, logical and persuasive words to the contrary. They are only a minority now, but their numbers are growing. You will find much on the realistic prospects of a world without State here at Mises.org, and I would also recommend another site that provides a wealth of information on the proposition that government is an unnecessary evil, a position you find, like those who once believed slavery was necessary, inconceivable. http://www.voluntaryist.com/
Regarding your biblical cites, you will find many cites to the Bible and a host of other authorities supporting the contrary view in the essay I referred to you earlier (JESUS OF NAZARETH…ETC. Unfortunately, the Bible citations are not indexed so you would have to wade through the essay to find them, usually quoted and indented making it a little easier.) Of course citing the Old Testament has lots of problems for any argument like this because it is possible to find support for almost any rational (and even some irrational) positions therein. For example, a good case can be made from words directly attributed by the Bible to God Himself that slavery meets with God’s approval. There is an entire chapter in the JESUS essay on this as well.
David, I hardly need point out the fact that all governments engage in the initiation of force against otherwise peaceful individuals, directly contrary to the teaching of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, in order to collect the taxes on which they utterly depend. Furthermore, extortion by taxation is prohibited by God’s commandments, Thou shall not steal; thou shall not covet thy neighbors’ goods. The only reason those extortionists operating under the euphemism, tax collectors, are not all in jail is because their governments grant them immunity to commit their crimes, though clearly God does not.
David, you may find it easier to comprehend and accept a world without forced taxation than one without government. Certainly to me the abolition of taxation, like slavery, seems a more achievable goal than an end to government entirely, which is why my focus is on the abolition of taxes. But obviously that would mean the end of government as we know it. I can live with “voluntary government.” How about you?
Comments on this entry are closed.