That is a fair objection. Humanitarian interventions probably wouldn't be allowable under a minarchy, unless you accept a more broad minarchist state which involves things like fire departments.
A pure minarchy would only allow for the three things I mentioned. But, Walter Block (not saying he's always right or anything like that, but I think he brought up an interesting point here) also allowed for a third category of libertarianism that isn't either anarchy or minarchy, but basically a "minarchy +" which is basically a minarchy plus a few extra things. Unlike anarchy or minarchy, the third category was somewhat nebulous and never really defined. In other words, anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are both things that you either believe in or you don't (if you believe in no State you're an ancap, if you believe in a State that does JUST the three things mentioned you're a minarchist, and if neither of the above is true you're neither) but the "minarchy +" (I think Block also called it classical liberalism) is one of those things where I'm not exactly sure where the line is, and I don't think Block ever defined it either. Basically, someone who's limited government enough to qualify as libertarian, but not enough so to qualify as a minarchist.
Now... I'm OK with this category existing in theory, but I'm not sure exactly where the line is. If the only additional things you wanted the government to do other than the big 3 are fire departments, I think I'd still consider you a libertarian. Same if you add roads. Mind you, you're getting less pure as you add more stuff, but still libertarian.
But, I can't do it with war. For me that's really a black and white issue. I don't mean to be rude about it, but on that one I really feel like either you take the correct, non-interventionist position, or you aren't a libertarian. War by necessity puts a TON of things under government control, and unlike police [by this I mean the minarchist police force, I don't think the current one benefits basically anyone], fire departments, or the like, war is actually a redistribution of resources from taxpayers to people in other countries. It doesn't benefit the people who are paying for it at all. So, I feel like trying to argue that that could possibly be libertarian is like arguing that social security could be libertarian. But it gets even worse when you consider that war also leaves innocents dead, even if unintended.
But then there is the broader libertarian and classical liberal framework as well.
This feels a lot like the whole "thick" libertarianism that some people are advocating. Keep in mind that whether the "thick" libertarian is advocating conservatism or liberalism doesn't matter. libertarianism is defined by belief in the non-aggression principle and private property rights. libertarians can (and will) believe in other things as well; those other things may even supercede those two things in the libertarian's individual mind, but ALL libertarians believe in those two things, and those are the only requirements to be libertarian. So, I don't really see how "broader libertarian principle" is applicable here. The two principles that libertarians actually do all agree on says that you are wrong here.
Again, I don't feel it violates the NAP on the foreign policy scale, or Just War Theory for that matter.
I don't remember the points in Just War Theory, but I don't subscribe to it. Mind you, I respect the spirit behind it. I agree that pacifism is incorrect (though understandable) and I also agree that the idea that government's can go to war to defend any interest they dream up is wrong (and not really understandable.) But, I don't agree with the theory as written. I don't think preemptive intervention is ever OK. And I think defending yourself from aggression is OK even if you have no chance to succeed. Maybe pragmatically a bad idea, but not immoral.
I'm not sure if you suggesting collateral deaths are murder?
Absolutely. I honestly don't see why this is so shocking to you. I've never seen any libertarian who has disagreed with it. But more importantly, it baffles me how any Christian could disagree with it. This is an issue I grow more and more intolerant on by the day.
I think in the case of a genocide, as much as intervening is designed to help innocent people, I think it is also the result of a moral obligation that comes over people and in that sense it is to their benefit to satisfy the obligation.
Maybe at an individual level. If you see a rapist raping a woman on the side of the street, and you have the ability to stop it, you have a moral obligation to do so (though I do NOT view you as a criminal inaction if you don't, unless you are a cop.) But, on the other hand, if shooting would lead to you killing the woman, you would not shoot. This is an obvious moral principle.
But at the collective level I don't think it applies in the same way, because nation's are not individuals. I know you don't want me to bring this up because its "irrelevant" but it really isn't. The State is a criminal organization. It funds its endeavors by stealing. And worse, when it goes to war, innocent people are killed. So, its not the same as individual intervention at all.
And I think what minarchy does is take what is acceptable to do on an individual level (defend yourself from aggression) and transfer it to a collectivist level. The difference being a minarchy also involves a justice system.
That's a pretty darn big difference. But, I don't think you can just make this transfer . For one thing, individuals don't have the right to engage in actions that lead to collateral damage for some kind of "greater good." And we call civilians who do that "murderers" or even "terrorists." And individuals can't force people to pay for whatever they want to do as individuals. Heck, as an individual I can build an auto shop, but that doesn't mean the government has the right to do that with tax money.
Now go back to the individual level again. It is your place to defend yourself. It isn't your place to get involved in a fight among strangers, usually. But if a defenseless person is being attacked and killed, you have that moral obligation to step in.
I already explained how this does not apply at the collective level.
I would argue that applies to everybody. It is something God has inserted as part of our humanity. Is that now abdicated on a collectivist level? I don't think anyone suddenly becomes exempt.
I, like you, believe in God. But I don't see anywhere in the Bible where God says you should use the State to impose his morals.
I feel we need to visualize the context. Say World War II wasn't going on, just the Holocaust. Would you use the military to end it?
Nope. I addressed this question above. In fact, even with WWII going on, I still wouldn't have gotten involved, which was the issue TC and I were discussing before.
Ron Paul was asked that once. He said he wouldn't risk the lives of the troops to do it.
Ron is right, and he had guts to say it too
But casualties cannot be expected to be high when you are stopping a genocide. Those committing it are executing, not trenched in to defend themselves.
Even one innocent casualty is unacceptable. I am not a utilitarian. Which may be why I'm an ancap and not a minarchist.
And the troops do volunteer knowing they may be sent to fight for a variety of reasons, many neither of us would support.
I don't "support the troops" either. Its a cliche, but Laurence Vance really does shed important light on those issues.
I know in my heart that Paul's answer was the wrong one. I believe it is incredibly selfish, even though I know that wasn't his point. His point was to adhere his to his principles no matter what. I think this extreme example shows why Jesus brushed legalism aside. It's why he gave us common sense.
I don't think it shows any such thing. Murder is still murder ,and theft is still theft. I don't think Jesus would condone killing innocents for some "greater good."
Blowback has specific causes, primarily retribution. Chaos results from power vacuums. So I don't think you can say as a general rule that bad things (beyond the conflict itself) have to result.
I don't think your post follows here. Of course blowback has specific causes. Seeing peaceful civilians killed in the Middle East is a huge part of it.
I would like to see such a scenario happen. I think the government should allow people to set up a rescue organization and allow them to purchase everything they need without legal restriction.
I should disclaimer here, and I know this is still somewhat controversial in libertarian circles, but here goes. To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, a rifle can be pinpointed, an ICBM cannot. There are certain types of weapons that are impossible to be used in any defensive manner (such as an ICBM) and so I tend to think that even possessing such weapons is a threat and a violation of the NAP. I could be convinced either way on that point, but that's the position I tend towards. A nuke isn't just different from a machine gun in degree, its different in kind. Both weapons can be used to kill a lot of people. But the fundamental difference between them is not that the nuke kills more people, but that the nuke CANNOT be used solely against aggressors. The machine gun can.
Now, for what its worth, if a private militia were to go into Iraq or whatever, I don't think its anymore the US government's business what they do as it is what the Iraqi government or other foreign governments do. Nor is it the US government's business if the foreign government kills them or has them put to death or whatever. So, I'm not saying that if some private militia goes into a foreign country and kills some innocents in an effort to stop a genocide that the US government should actually prosecute them for it. But I still don't think that would be right, which is part of why I think MOST warfare is intrinsically immoral.
But that isn't where we are today. If a bunch of hotheads were actually dumb enough to go there under current circumstances, they wouldn't know where to start. They would be quickly and easily killed.
True. But two wrongs don't make a right.
No, I am saying that if going in to stop a genocide is going to result in an all out war that makes the genocide look like a drop in a bucket, then that is just stupid.
Which was the case in Nazi Germany as well. More people were killed in the war than by the Holocaust, by a significant margin.
Now, we know government's are inefficient and don't care much about human life. FDR didn't. So, if you want to say some collaborative group of militias could have waged that same war with far fewer casualties and far more efficiently and far less expensively, I would tend to agree with you. Heck, I think they should have had a private "assassinate Hitler" fundraiser. One casualty, not innocent, with a warning that the same will be done to anyone else who tries to institute a mass Holocaust. Done. (Yes, I know that it isn't easy to kill Hitler, but I think it could have been accomplished FAR more cheaply than waging WWII.)
Maybe you are right. Police sometimes stop crimes. But usually they are there to collect people for punishment and deter crime.
I always assumed that "policing the world" was an expression for telling other countries how to run their affairs and intervening in countries because we don't like what they are doing. I don't see how any knowledgeable person could think that US cops are actually useful at this point.
I should note that sending aid and weapons to innocent civilians should happen before any military intervention. As always, it should be the last option on the table.
I agree with the idea of sending aid and weapons, but I don't think that's the government's job. Individual civilians should have the right to do that if they want, or not.
