Against the Libertarian Cold War

Occam's Banana

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
39,960
h/t Bob Murphy: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/03/potpourri-193.html
Bob Murphy said:
Anthony Gregory tries to give some “movement history” on the Crimea question.

Against the Libertarian Cold War
http://libertarianstandard.com/2014/03/26/against-the-libertarian-cold-war/
Anthony Gregory (26 March 2014)

A controversy has arisen in the libertarian movement over the proper approach to the events concerning Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea. Like many such controversies, it has quickly polarized almost everyone, and has served as a proxy for long-standing factionalism within the movement. People quickly accuse each other of supporting Putin’s aggression or backing violent U.S. intervention. I myself have been accused of both kissing up to the Russian regime and dishing out State Department propaganda. This doesn’t itself show I have the right balance in my position, only that this feud has galvanized libertarians and hardened their rhetorical loyalties.

We might learn something from looking back at the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. During the Cold War, most western critics of state power erred too far in one direction or the other. There were some whose opposition to U.S. wars led them to soften their assessment of communist aggression. Free-market and leftist lovers of peace both made this mistake. At the same time, many who favored economic and political liberty often let their anti-communism translate into support for American militarism and the security state. This confusion pervaded Americans across the spectrum.

We can all see this now: Yes, some antiwar Americans were obscenely soft on the communists. Well-meaning but foolish westerners said nice things about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao—and many of a more moderate tinge had no perspective of just how much worse international communism was than the U.S. system, at least as it concerned domestic affairs. Meanwhile, many libertarians and almost all conservatives ditched their supposed attachment to skepticism of government power and signed onto the U.S. Cold War effort. This American project included dozens of coups and interventions, the instruction of foreign secret police in unspeakable torture techniques, murderous carpet bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of peasants, and wars that indirectly brought about the Khmer Rouge and the rise of Islamist fundamentalism, both of which also became directly funded in the name of anti-communism.

It is easy to look back and see how westerners were wrong on both the Cold War and communist states—each of which killed millions of people and nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust.

The stakes were so much higher then than in anything going on with Russia now. Imprecision in one’s moral assessment—either in defense of Nixon or Tito—was far more condemnable than criticizing Putin or Obama too harshly. The errors of almost all the great 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century libertarians, free marketers, and peaceniks far exceeded any errors some might have today in their appraisal of NATO or Russia and Ukraine. And yet we forgive many people on both sides of that Cold War division. No one today actually thinks Hayek was a neocon or Rothbard a pinko.

Today’s polarization is all the more frustrating given that the bulk of American libertarians seem to agree on two major points: (1) the U.S. should not intervene in Eastern Europe and (2) Putin’s various power grabs are indefensible. Thus, most libertarians are not truly as divided as well-meaning Americans were in the Cold War.

Now, one’s emphasis is important. Not all acts of aggression are equal. But before addressing that, it’s useful to try to actually understand the splits in the movement right now.

I easily identify four factions, not two: (A) There are people who outright defend Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and Crimea, and who otherwise downplay his autocratic tendencies; (B) There are those who agree that Putin is worth condemning, but who think it’s more important to emphasize the evils of U.S. interventionism; (C) There are those who agree that U.S. intervention is unwise and maybe even unethical, but who think it’s most important right now to emphasize Putin’s despotism; (D) There are those who outright favor U.S. and western intervention to stop Putin.

The polarization of discussion has led to A and B teaming up against C and D. It has also led to people in the B camp pretending like “no one” on their side is actually defending Putin, while people in the C camp are pretending “no one” on their side is actually calling for war or major U.S. interventions.

A principled opponent of state power is tempted to say that in fact B and C are on one side, despite differences in emphasis, and A and D are two extremes flirting with nationalist statism. This is my position, although I will say that I have friends—good friends—who flirt with being in camp A as well as in camp D. It happens. And to make the point again, during the Cold War, any libertarian activist would have probably had some friends who advocated nuclear strikes against the USSR, and others who supported Soviet control of the Eastern Bloc. Both of these positions would have been completely immoral and disgusting—far worse than anything said by anyone in Camp A or Camp D today. Yet today’s Cold War replay is leading people to defriend each other in the name of Manichean struggle. The tendency of people to break ties with others over this will only increase the polarization and erode mutual understanding.

On the other hand, camps A and D are at least being outright in their positions, while B and C are letting themselves get dragged into a flame war against each other when they both agree on both Putin’s and America’s actions. Both B and C are being disingenuous about some of their allies in the attempt to seem reasonable and principled and to say the other side is the only one that’s unbalanced.

In both cases, the problem appears to be nationalism—a desire to defend Putin’s actions as consistent with Russian, rather than individualist, concerns; or a desire to see American intervention as being more defensible than Russian aggression because, well, at least it’s American, and we have better, more liberal values at home. Both tendencies are in fact very illiberal, as are the attempts to collectively attack people on the “other side” of this debate when for all you know some of them agree with you on all the fundamentals more than some of the people “on your side” do.

The arguments over Russia have brought the Cold War back to the movement. [...]

[... more at link: http://libertarianstandard.com/2014/03/26/against-the-libertarian-cold-war/ ...]

[...] Those who wish to purge either Ron Paul’s followers or the Student for Liberty internationalists over this are ignoring the points of agreement as well as the odious errors on their own side, and maybe even their own errors, and are blowing things out of proportion.

Did I myself get the balance perfectly right? Perhaps not. The right balance would have been even harder during the Cold War, and yet it would have mattered much more then. So please, everyone, take a step back. It’s fun as hell to get in faction fights. Sectarian squabbles are the force that gives us meaning. But you’ll find yourself drained and with fewer friends in the end. Don’t pretend your fellow libertarians are themselves worse than Russian nationalists or the Pentagon. It’s not true in either case. Our unifying enemy should be the same: aggression, whether it is ordered from Moscow or Washington DC.

Whenever anyone strays from this balance, it’s good to bring up what they’re missing. Then you’ll see who your true allies are, who the trolls are, and who is simply using this as a battle to refight old clashes in the movement. You’ll also find out what people’s actual position is, and that might help inform your own.
 
I try to only approach the subject as an anti-statist that has no use for the EU, US, or Russia. All of those are wrong and I hope Ukrainians join the liberty movement.
 
A very good read, IMO, and perhaps the most accurate breakdown of this situation as it relates to divides within libertarian circles that I've read thus far.

I try to only approach the subject as an anti-statist that has no use for the EU, US, or Russia. All of those are wrong and I hope Ukrainians join the liberty movement.

I generally agree with this, and try to do the same. Equal opportunity anti-statism.
 
Dan McAdams revealed that McCobin (author of the Students For Liberty hit piece) has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy. When anyone has ties to such a group, the default position should be, at minimum, one of skepticism - if not outright derision and opposition. Murray Rothbard also wrote on this type of issue, in that it's not simply sufficient to say 'states are involved, therefore all sides are equally wrong':

Murray Rothbard said:
On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists, each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid bothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation-state system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all states will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that states, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each state aggresses against innocent civilians "belonging" to the other state.

Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of the state itself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there, and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all states are equally guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world-government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable "Third Camp" position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly "idealistic" and out-of-it sectarian, a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his "pure" position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.

No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate state-guilt does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought – and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greater degree of guilt on one side or the other.
 
Murray Rothbard also wrote on this type of issue, in that it's not simply sufficient to say 'states are involved, therefore all sides are equally wrong':

He makes a good point, which I'd be more inclined to agree with under different circumstances, but on this specific issue, I'm not sure it's all that relevant. Admittedly, I find that I'm more vocally critical of the U.S. Perhaps that's simply because I live in the U.S., but I think it also has to do with the rather frequent and consistent intervention the U.S. has been involved in--the U.S. makes itself a flagrant and easy target, more often than not, for the anti-statist. In this situation though, you have Putin's Russia, U.S. intervention, and what appears to be a National Socialist faction out of Ukraine, not to mention the EU, NATO, IMF, etc. Most seem interested in trying to figure out who is 'right' in this clusterfuck, but that seems to be an exercise in futility to me. And if one does pick a side, so to speak, they usually end up defending that side against those who disagree with that choice, rather than holding the side they've chosen accountable for their own role in the problem. And in the meantime, the message of anti-statism gets lost in squabbles over finer details and he-said-she-said sort of debates. So, in a way, it's much easier to maintain objectivity in this situation as it stands now by taking a step back and regarding all parties for what they are, special-interests backed by the power of a State at the expense of people, rather than trying to figure who is 'more wrong' which generally translates into figuring out who is 'right', thereby clouding the discourse further and causing divisions that don't really matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

So, while I agree that it may not be sufficient, neither is picking sides, in this case, as far as I can tell.
 
A principled opponent of state power is tempted to say that in fact B and C are on one side, despite differences in emphasis,

Yeah, B and C really aren't different. Just a matter of degree, or simply emphasis in any given conversation.
 
The US shouldn't be involved in any way but we already bankrolled this "revolution" with nationalist shock troops(whom are being eliminated now that they've outlived their usefulness) and illegally removed the democratically elected president. Russia is as concerned as America would be if a Russian backed anti-American coup happened in Mexico, lets not pretend this is the first time we've poked the Russian bear since the fall of Soviet Union either. Russia has a legitimate claim to Crimea and the people of Crimea want to be apart of Russia. With there being no legitimate government in Kiev, Crimea has achieved self-determination and did so without significant bloodshed which can only be described a good thing. What business does the US or its allies have talking about sanctions and travel bans when the same standards do not apply to them? The crocodile tears over Ukraine's "territorial integrity" and constitution is completely laughable.
 
Libertarians, Crimea

There is a debate going on between libertarians on what is a correct libertarian position on the Russian seizure of Crimea. It took off when Alexander McCobin and Eglė Markevičiūtė of Students for Liberty criticized Ron Paul for his stance which triggered a response by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace. Subsequently Justin Raimondo and John Glaser of antiwar.com and Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute all weighed in on the matter.

John Glaser finds the original article by McCobin which jump-started the debate to be “perfectly respectful”. Indeed the tone McCobin adopts is polite, however, it is grating he chooses to challenge Ron Paul on a matter it is clear he knows so little about. This is most obvious when he alleges the Crimean referendum only asked the participants whether Crimea would “join Russia now or later”. Actually this is patently false, as the second option was for Crimea to remain in Ukraine, but with its autonomy fully restored. It would have been far more respectful of McCobin if he had taken the time to learn more about an issue he was going to challenge Paul on.

McCobin’s lack of knowledge does not do his position any favors. He argues by assertion, the only depth to his arguments is provided by a few unconvincing links. At the end of it the only thing his piece effectively communicates is that McCobin is grated by Putin. Perhaps for some street cred and an air of authority he partners up with one Eglė Markevičiūtė who invokes “people in Eastern Europe” and is sure to mention he is speaking “as an Eastern European”. Of course Eastern Europeans come in all shapes and sizes, as well as positions on the Russian military seizure of Crimea. Indeed the Crimeans themselves reside in the eastern half of the European continent and a substantial number of them actually greeted the Russian invasion.

For his part, in replying to McCobin, McAdams is wrong in not accepting that invasion is the proper term to describe the Russian military operation in Crimea. That is actually exactly what took place. Russian forces poured out from its bases and established full control over the peninsula and forced the retreat, resignation or defection of Ukrainian government forces. Fortunately the takeover was nearly bloodless and apparently without a single instance of actual fighting directly between Russian and Ukrainian servicemen.

At this point it would be useful to point out the Russian invasion clearly violated international law. Russian forces took military control of a part of the Republic of Ukraine. In this sense Russian actions were clearly an act of aggression and should be denounced as such. At the same time, however, this is not necessarily a moral judgment. As libertarians we are opposed to government power and therefore seek to restrain the state as much as possible. This often has us insisting a state should adhere to its constitution, or in other contexts, to international law. This, however, does not mean we necessarily grant any special validity or moral worth to such laws, which after all have been tailor-made by governments. We merely do this because it seems logical to us that limited states should, at the very least, adhere to the restraints imposed on them by the rulebooks they themselves claim to accept.

This means it is not sufficient we characterize the Russian invasion as an “aggression” as Anthony Gregory does and leave it at that. It was an aggression against the Republic of Ukraine, but since we hold that states do not have rights in the first place (only individuals do) this is a technical rather than a moral condemnation. We must define whose legitimate rights the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea has trampled on.

Clearly the Russians here have trampled over the rights of up to 470,000 Crimeans who do not want to become subjects of the Russian Federation, but were left with no say in the matter. Certainly we should spare a thought for the plight that awaits them. Paying taxes to or being conscripted by a state many of them detest, they are going to suffer and feel themselves oppressed. This is extremely unfortunate and unjust. As libertarians we should denounce the coercion against them and argue they be allowed to remain in Ukraine.

Meanwhile up to 1,880,000 Crimeans replaced Ukraine for the Russian Federation willingly. Obviously there was no aggression against them. On the contrary. They are now rid of Ukrainian rule that weighted heavily on them and have replaced it with Russian rule that they expect to find more tolerable. In as much as they are concerned the invasion was not aggression but liberation.

Indeed then as libertarians we must denounce the Russian seizure of Crimea as oppression against some of its people, just as we applaud it as liberation of others. The Russian actions here were both commendable and objectionable. The invasion broke international law and could have led to substantial loss of life and damage. Also, even as the Russian-majority of Crimea rejoices, the Russian state has now been imposed on another half a million people who never showed an inclination of wanting this.
 
Back
Top