Two words that seemingly refuse to go together. On the whole, libertarians are against any foreign intervention, regardless of circumstances. They are ideologically stubborn, refusing to concede any ground or waste their time with pragmatism.
They believe in their principles, which is partly to be admired, but on the whole, very annoying. I have principles, political and non-political, if I can I stick by them I will, but don’t get me wrong I’m willing to be flexible with them – unlike libertarians. For them, (and yes, I am generalising) you have to stick to every principle you choose.
I’ve asked many libertarians what they would do about the problem of regimes like Assad’s in Syria. In reality, I haven’t received a decent, convincing response. Freedom and liberty is crucial for libertarians of course, and they protest to the hilt against any infringement against our liberties here in the UK. So I find it very hard to understand why they are not as passionate when defending the rights and liberties of everybody. Why are our rights superior to the people of Syria? Why should they be foaming at the mouth about Government plans to read our emails, but not protecting the lives of people being persecuted in Syria and other places?
Now I am not advocating a policy stance whereby the UK should intervene at the drop of a hat, we have to look closely at the details and the effects of any intervention. We should not get involved, replacing one murderous dictator and allowing another to take their place. We have to be strong with economic sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure. If this continues to fail though, intervention may be necessary, protecting the lives of persecuted minorities should not be something the UK should be ashamed off.
Libertarians argue that Government cannot give you freedom, and that you can only free yourself. Whilst ideologically this is fine, in reality its impossible. I’d like to see a libertarian tell a family in Syria that armed with their words and ideas that they can free themselves from the oppressive Assad regime. Because after all, words are more powerful than weapons. Maybe in the fantasy ideal world that libertarians place themselves in, but in reality, they are simply killed for protesting.
What I find wholly uncomfortable is the idea that we cannot fix every problem in the world and that we in effect, simply accept that people will be killed worldwide whilst we stand by and watch. It is a very cold, inhumane approach to take and it is deeply concerning. As Edmund Burke so eloquently put it “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
I hope, and I really mean this, that somebody reads this and tries to convince me that I’m wrong about libertarians, and that they do have some solutions, because right now I’m yet to hear one.
Very good piece, Liam.
Think that you are pretty much spot on. Despite the fact that we come from radically different places politically – you would probably call me an authoritarian – but I would describe myself as a liberal. Being a liberal means, in my opinion, that you have the willing to stand up for the rights of others against genuinely authoritarian and barbaric regimes.
Best,
Harry.
Not all libertarians will agree with what I’m about to say, but then I am on the extreme of libertarianism.
The main problem with military intervention is that the State will aggress not only against the criminals that are killing their own people but also against innocent by-standers. In an age of bombs and missiles the killing of innocent civilians in war is unavoidable. It is also a crime. Which is why we, or at least I, cannot support war.
As for economic sanctions, they can not be supported either because the State would be interfering in the voluntary trade of individuals in other words it would be interfering in the economy, if we are against State interference in the economy then we must be against economic sanctions.
But I think your main question was what our solution to the situation in Syria would be. The solution would be free-trade, open borders, and an end to State Aid to foreign countries. Free trade and open borders will lead to a more open society and an exchange of culture and ending State aid will stop foreign dictators using our tax money to kill their own citizens.
Admittedly the first two solutions are really long-term benefits but interventionist arguments seem to fall for that old socialist fallacy of: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.
Oh, I should mention the other solution. Seeing as taxation is theft we (speaking for Anarcho-Capitalists) cannot endorse the State using money that it has stolen from poor British people to kill poor people in country X (insert latest troubled country here). However, there’s nothing wrong with interventionists buying some gear and going to country X to join the “freedom fighters”. In fact we’d encourage it.
May I start by saying that this was a very good piece and well argued. I feared a neo-conesque rant, but it was nothing of the sort. Kudos.
I consider myself a libertarian, but not an isolationist or pacifist. I support a stong national defence and a foreign policy a little more selfish than is currently in vouge in the West.
However I would disagree with intervention in most cases, and with Syria in particular. I do so not because of ideology, but because of pragmatism.
Firstly, intervention causes as many problems as it solves.
Yes, we may have toppelled the tyrant and chased his thugs from the capital, but what do we do then? Into the inevitable power vaccum pours all manner of criminal gangs, extremists and nationalists……..and of course the place is awash with weapons.
Second, the ability of the Western powers to mould the world in our image is rapidly dimishing. We lack the money, the assets and the logistics to act without American support.
And with the US shifting its orientation to the Pacific, with a smaller, more agile force structure, military interventions going to become increasingly rare.
Thridly, linked to the previous point, real change in Syria will only be achieved at the point of a Western bayonet. Too much blood has been shed for the Ba’athists of Assad to be included in any national unity government with the rebels. And the only way the regime is going to be removed is by a full scale air campaign and subsequent occupation. A governmemt will have to be installed by the Western powers, and then propped up. It will (rightly or wrongly) be seen as a puppet, and its life expectancy will be short. It’ll cling on only through brutalility and corruption. It’ll become a new Afghanistan, right on our doorstep.
Finally, I prefer the ‘better the devil you know’ policy.
We could isolate regimes we didn’t like in the 1990’s because they had nobody else to turn too, following the collapse of the USSR. But that is not the case anymore. China, Brazil, India and increasingly Russia, are all far less squemish about engaging with the likes of Burma, Syria and Zimabawe. Meanwhile, we in the West are left high and dry and without influence.
The West is not the only show in town, and these regimes know it.
Better, surely, to engange them and influence them as friends, rather than fruitlessly demand change as advesaries? Think how much worse the old military regimes of Taiwan or South Korea could have been with the US reigning in their more oppressive impluses.
It would be delightful if we had a few more Denmarks and few less North Korea’s. However the world isn’t like that. The world is at different stages of development, and we need to acknowledge that. You can’t install the institutions of democracy with a howitzer.
You deal with the neighbourhs you have, not the ones you want.
It is my opnion that you can be a libertarian at home, but a realist abroad.
Lee is clearly not as dogmatic as I am. 🙂
How about this? If the DEC can run voluntary food aid campaigns, why can something similar not run voluntary defensive security campaigns? The aim is not to take sides in a sense, but to negate the state’s ability to inflict violence and so give those opposing the state some sense of security from which to build their movement.
I don’t know if you have moderation on or whether my comment disappeared into the ether unexpectedly, but I was going to say – here’s one I wrote earlier. In this case related to Libya but with all these situations in mind. If DEC can organise voluntary food aid campaigns why can’t some similar group arrange voluntary security and protection campaigns? The aim is not to take sides as such which will always be controversial, but to give sufficient protection to those being violently oppressed that it negates the state’s ability to do so. That would give, perhaps, the victims sufficient security to stand up for themselves on a political level.
Whilst I agree it’s very hard to simply stand-by and watch horrible things happen you have to take a long-term logical view rather than a short-term emotional view.
It might make us feel better to think we’re helping overseas but do we really make the world a better place or do we simply write the history?
How many of the interventions we’ve made since the Second World War have actually been successful? The only one that can be said to have really worked is Kosovo and any good we did in that intervention has been wiped out ten-fold by the disastrous consequences of our actions elsewhere.
We can all agree to be in favour of selected interventions but that’s the point at which the real disagreements begin. Which out of Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan/Kosovo were valid? And were the arguments clear enough to begin with that we could have determined the odds of success before we made the commitment? We know Kosovo was a success in hindsight but could we have known that with any certainty in advance?
The real problem may well be that we even identify a tyrant, decide to take action and go in but then realise we have no real idea what our actual objectives are or how we will measure success. Are we in Afghanistan to prevent terror, to establish democracy or to support women’s rights? Whilst they’re all noble goals there are at least 100 other countries where the same justifications could be made and indeed who do the Afghans fear more… us or the Taliban?
This stretching of objectives has led to a continual distrust of the Western powers by others, because we stretched (or broke) our legal mandate once again in Libya they now won’t grant us a similar one in Syria.
In reality, to a Libertarian (I’m not one) I reckon they think power lies with the individual. No dictator lasts long without the consent of his people and if a dictator manages to survive then he must have reasonable support. Even in Libya, it’s arguable that Gaddafi had 40% support and that the new regime will be even less popular and even more oppressive than the state.
We also do not have the power or the budget (or even, arguably, the right) to dictate who they should put in after a “regime change”. Libya will likely replace one dictator with another and Egypt will to. If we intervened in Syria and removed the dictator who is oppressing the 66% then the 66% will simply elect someone who will oppress the 33% who backed the other guy. Violence only ever begets more violence.
I know no-one on this blog is advocating simple solutions but are there even complex solutions? If there were complex solutions would the government be competent enough to enact them? Is it coincidental that we try to intervene a couple of times per decade? How many foreign lives do you have to save to justify one domestic live lost?
Perhaps 5 years is the amount of time that it takes for the wider society to forget the disasters from the last “good intervention” and think that this time things will be different? And even if we create a framework for “good interventions” how do we ensure that future government won’t abuse it to carry out their own goals, whether political, monetary or religious (they all probably apply to Tony Blair)?
0 Pingbacks
Twitter
Tweets by Quinn64Blogroll
Top Posts & Pages
Most Discussed
50p tax rate athiest baroness wasri benefit cap budget cameron china coalition Cold War conservatives daily mail david cameron david laws david miliband defection difference principle drop the bill drugs economics economy Ed Miliband education EU faith foreign policy general election george osborne Gulf of Tonkin history housing iain duncan smith inheritance intervention jeremy hunt JFK job seekers allowance john rawls Labour lansley lib dems liberal liberal democrats liberalism liberty local elections milton friedman minimum pricing nhs nick clegg orange book philosophy policy politics pupil premium religion rent control revision russia same-sex marriage secularism social housing syria taxes tories U-Turn UK UKIP university USA USSR Vietnam welfare welfare system workfare young people