| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels People
often confuse libertarians for what they are not.
America’s political environment only has room for Democrats and
Republicans, Left and Right, and trying to cram libertarians into one of
those two boxes is futile at best.
Lately libertarians have been labeled as part of the Right
because they advocate lower taxes, cuts in governmental spending,
privatization of Social Security, school choice and so forth.
Yet if it were the 1960’s, libertarians would assuredly be
thrown in with the Left for opposing the Vietnam War, the draft,
censorship and the War on Drugs. Well,
which are they, Left or Right? Honestly,
neither. Then
last week I happen upon the first issue of “The Beltway Free-Marketeer,”
a student publication from GMU’s main campus that purports to
“promote the libertarian philosophy.”
I think, ah, maybe this will clear up some of the confusion.
The Free-Marketeer goes on to define libertarians as those who
“oppose the initiation of force, support the free market as the most
efficient way to allocate resources, and . . . assert that man is not
moral in the absence of moral choice.”
Well, sort of, but those aren’t the foundational principles
that the philosophy is grounded in.
Reading on, I find the paper’s editor, Zac Gochenour, arguing
against the current war against Iraq in part by citing Murray Rothbard,
who said, “[T]he libertarian opposes war. Period.” And
I, a libertarian, think, “Bwah?”
Libertarians don’t oppose war!
If that were true, you’d have libertarians denouncing the
Founding Fathers for waging war against the Crown to secure their
independence, instead of praising them as Gochenour does in the very
same piece he quotes Rothbard. This
makes no sense. To
clear things up, here is the essence of what libertarianism is about:
Libertarians believe that all human beings are equal, vested with the
right to their own life, liberty and property, no matter what a
government does or says. The purpose of government is to protect those rights.
Therefore, a libertarian government raises an army to protect its
people against invasion by a foreign power, creates a police and court
system by which to enforce private contracts, apprehend those who
violate another’s rights and punish them, and so on.
If you aren’t violating another person’s rights, the
government has no business bothering you or telling you how to live your
life. These
are the same principles that grounded the Declaration of Independence
and guided our Constitution. Indeed,
the Declaration is seen by many as the most eloquent statement of
libertarian philosophy. And
yet the Declaration simultaneously threw down the gauntlet of war to
defend its precepts. This is not contradictory, since the right to defend yourself
against those who would violate your rights is inherent to the right you
have to your life. The
Founding Fathers saw themselves locked under a government that violated
their rights, and in self-defense they used force to throw off the yoke. Patrick Henry in his famous speech to the Virginia Convention
of Delegates implored the need for war, declaring, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God!” The libertarian,
contrary to Rothbard’s assertion, certainly can advocate war and has
done so in the past. War
against an oppressive regime is quite libertarian. However,
that doesn’t mean that libertarian principles supported the Vietnam
War or advocate the current war with Iraq.
The libertarian government is there to protect the rights of its
own people, not the people of every nation.
Maybe other people want to be oppressed; it’s not our
business. However, we all
can come to different conclusions as to when Americans are in danger and
require our government to use force to defend us. I
happen to be in the minority of libertarians who see the war in Iraq as
justified self-defense since (1) Iraq refused to come clean on its
weapons of mass destruction or the development thereof, (2) Hussein is
already openly supportive of terrorist groups like Hamas and openly
hostile toward America, (3) we’ve seen now the devastation that
terrorist groups are willing to strive for, and (4) it’s just a matter
of time until Iraq furnishes an anti-American terrorist group like al-Qaeda
with a weapon or the money to wreak another 9/11 against American
civilians. If
Iraq had repudiated terrorists and their goals and swiftly acted to
destroy their existing banned arms and provided proof of the destruction
of others, I’d not see a threat to American lives from Iraq and would
consequently oppose the war as unnecessary to protect the rights of
Americans. But in my
weighing of the risks and probabilities, I see a Hussein-led Iraq that
repeatedly violates reasonable (albeit toothless) U.N. measures to be an
inevitable danger. Our
government does not need to wait until more Americans die before acting
to defend our rights. Most
other libertarians see it differently, arguing that the danger is too
tenuous or remote, and I suppose who’s right will be discovered at the
end of the war. But no libertarian would insist on peace at any cost. |
||
