TheAgitator.com
A Consequential Argument against the War
Friday, June 4th, 2004One way to think of the governments of the world is as a political market. Each government has its own laws, regulations, and tax policies, analagous to a vendor selling goods in a bazaar, alongside other such vendors. There is no supra-national higher authority to regulate these governments. The United States has been historically an attractive government to live under, and thus, people have often chosen this government from the world political market, resulting in an nation of immigrants.
There is a significant price to be paid for making these choices on the political market. Moves from living under one government to another are costly, in more ways than one. The trip to the new jurisdiction has to be paid for. Belongings have to be packed up and transported over land and sea. Old jobs have to be severed, and new ones found. The red tape of paperwork has to be cut through. New languages have to be learned. Family has to be left behind. A new culture has to be acclimated to. Sometimes, the punishment for unsuccessfully trying to change governments is imprisonment or death. Difficult choices have to be made.
If it was somehow possible to reduce these costs and make exiting one government for another relatively easy, then governments would have to compete over their citizens. The result would be jurisdictional regulatory arbitrage– a net positive for liberty. This political market for laws is the next best alternative to a truly free market for laws.
The original design of the United States tried to take advantage of such a political market by having relatively independent states with a strictly limited Federal Government. Federalism is attractive because it allows the individual states to compete over Americans’ patronage. Instead, with the powerful Federal government we have today, there are fewer choices for everyone. The political market within the United States has been greatly harmed since 1787.
Natalie Solent, like myself, opposes the EU, UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank for a similar reason– these supranational entities blur the distinctive features of different systems of government that used to exist, say between communist countries and liberal democracies. Gradual rot and a slide into decadence result from the lack of contrasting examples.
This argument can be further extended to the War in Iraq. There were many arguments against the War, many of them I found unattractive, with the most egregious ones being those that appealed to “non-aggression” (as if Iraqis citizens weren’t already being ‘aggressed’ against) and those that appealed to ‘International Law’. A better case against the War can be made for purely consequential reasons.
When the US government takes part in dictating to other countries how to manage their affairs, it hampers the worldwide political market. When it pushes around those nations that do not meet its standards, fewer choices are available to everyone. With the wonders of technology, the political market has been growing in many ways. Tax shelters, offshore banking, and the like, which were once only available to the “Jet Set” are today available to the upper-middle class, and are becoming cheaper everyday. If other nations are ever to act as tax havens, blacknets, and issuers of anonymous digital currency, they have to be free of the threat of violent consequences from the US government. To me, that is the best argument against the War in Iraq.
When the US government engages in a worldwide War on Terror, it plays the same role as the EU, UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank: a predatory, harmonizing, choice-limiting, political-market monopolist.
[cross-posted at Catallarchy]
Excellent point. I made a similar argument here:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/mccracken/mccracken1.html
What war? I haven’t heard about this one. I certainly have never read an opinion about any so-called “war.”
War? Really?
Your argument again the war as American interference in the “political market” only works if one assumes that the market was free prior to the US involvement. It clearly was not, as the Iraqi people had by an large, not chosen the Iraqi political system.
Given that the market was already being distorted, the question is whether the American intervention increased the level of distortion of mitigated it.
By way of analogy: if the government goes and forceably takes money from person A and gives it to person B, that would be interfering in the economic marketplace. If the market is free, it would be wrong for the government to do so.
However, suppose person A had, on the previous evening, gone and stolen person B’s wallet. Does this mean the govenment shouldn’t return person B’s property for fear of further interfering with the market?
I think I may disagree a little bit with the immigrant logic. If nations compete for immigrants (who has the nation most attractive to immigrants) then I’m not sure the one with the most liberty is the one a substantial percentage of immigrants would choose. Often immigrants may arrive with little more than the shirt on their back. Given that condition at entry… no employment, no money, would not many immigrants choose a nation with more socialized services? Perhaps to them the prospect of a subsidized hot meal and healthcare outweighs their desire for pure liberty. I’ve noticed Canada has a lot of immigrants (at least in Toronto and Montreal, where I’ve been). Perhaps they chose Canada over the U.S. due to that? After all, it’s probably easier logistically to get to the U.S. than Canada from a lot of places.
I support the federalist system intended by our Founders and think the political “market” is a fine way to model the way states behave in a federalist system. But I find Jonathan’s argument pretty flimsy.
The primary responsibility of the US government is to protect the rights and lives of its citizens against foreign threats. Being a fair competitor in the “marketplace of political systems” falls considerably lower in the list of priorities.
Further, I think Jonathan’s argument fails on its own terms. The US was engaged in destroying a nation that, in both word and deed, presented a threat. Nowhere does Jonathan show that a necessary consequence of this action is a continuing interference in the political structures of other nations. The arguments for war stated that Iraq had violated treaties that ended the last war, aided terrorists, possessed or intended to possess weapons of mass destruction, and was openly hostile to the US. Whether these arguments are valid is a fair question (and a different discussion). The point is that we’re forcing a political change in Iraq to protect the United States, not because representative democracy cannot countenance competitive political systems. Jonathan certainly doesn’t show that the next step is the invasion of Sweden to overthrow socialized medicine.
But even if we use the political marketplace analogy, it could be argued that the US is justified in pursuing this war. Just like a tax system, one competitive advantage that a political system could offer over its competitors is the manner in which it protects its citizens. A nation or a culture that fails to defend the lives of its “clientele” against terrorist attacks will quickly find itself looking for new customers.
Finally, consider the situation under an idealized US federal system. Vermont, years after unsuccessfully invading Massachusetts, begins funding terrorist insurgents in New Hampshire, while violating treaties with New York and developing chemical weapons. The states would probably appeal to the US government. (Find me an analogous entity in the marketplace of nations. The UN?) The result would likely be that the states would band together to implement some sort of sanctions regime. If that proves unsuccessful, wouldn’t you expect them to react militarily? In doing so, have they violated the spirit of federalism?
Interesting point, but I have some problems with it.
First, it assumes that the political “market” allows a free choice to a greater extent than is true. A free choice requires information, which in Iraq in pre-war days was dictated by Saddam. If you’re currently using one baker for your muffins, and he tells you that the baker across the pond is peeing in the batter, are you going to change bakers? What if you think your baker will hurt you or your family if he finds out you’re thinking of buying your muffins elsewhere?
Secondly, suppose we did decide to abandon the whole war on terror thing and thereby support this political free market, and assume that people are able to choose freely between nations (although with the costs Mr. Wilde cited). Let’s not forget that while we’re nobly promoting diversity of governments and fostering competition for citizens, some asshole is thinking about blowing those new citizens up. We have governments to protect us and our markets from physical violence; a free market only works in the absence of force.
Say the baker across the street, the Evil Baker, tries to chase off my current baker’s customers by bombing the bakery. Or say he tries to coerce my baker’s customers into shopping Evil Bakery through the use of force. Either way, the police are going to show up and haul him off. If there weren’t any police, he would either get away with it, or else my baker would have to fight back on his own.
In the political market between nations, there aren’t any police (well, the UN, but that’s pretty laughable). As a government, you can’t sit there getting bombed to protect the market – you protect your current citizens first. If you don’t protect your citizens, the citizenship market you helped preserve will turn against you as people leave to avoid getting blown up. You have to fight back because no one else is there to keep the peace.
Incidentally, whether we are fighting back in the most effective manner is a separate debate.
G
Patrick. You evidently type faster than me, and you use better examples too. G
Thanks, G. They’re totally going to think we’re the same person.
The idea of a political “marketplace” is retarded. Federal Law is by far the most complicated, largest collection of (related) text on Earth. There are so many variables, with so few choices. If there were thousands or hundreds of thousands of world governments, even that might present such a limited choice in this space to be laughable.
Then are these thorny issues such as GEOGRAPHY, ETHNICITY, WEALTH, LIFESTYLE, etc.
What a stupid idea.
PLONK. In the garbage.
Is that similar to the theory that I could come over to your house every night and beat you over the head and you should do nothing about it because others have a choice of whether they want to hang out with me even if you don’t want to?
Stormy,
Your response sounds like a moral argument, i.e., that justice should be sought against those who aggress against others; not a consequential argument. My argument is purely consequential in that I recognize that the political market is an imperfect situation, and that included in the costs of Exit are potential imprisonment and death for an unsuccessful attempt. Saddam was a tyrant, but there were (very difficult) ways to escape Iraq. Plenty of people emigrated during Saddam’s reign. Some gave up their freedom for trying and failing. The costs of exiting Saddam’s rule were very high, but it was certainly possible.
matt,
I think I may disagree a little bit with the immigrant logic. If nations compete for immigrants (who has the nation most attractive to immigrants) then I’m not sure the one with the most liberty is the one a substantial percentage of immigrants would choose. Often immigrants may arrive with little more than the shirt on their back. Given that condition at entry… no employment, no money, would not many immigrants choose a nation with more socialized services? Perhaps to them the prospect of a subsidized hot meal and healthcare outweighs their desire for pure liberty.
You are absolutely right, and I did not mean to imply that people always make choices in the political market because of a desire for liberty. Many make choices that result in living at others’ expense.
But, a diverse political market is a net positive nonetheless. For example, I wish the people who support high taxation, the drug war, social security, public education, smoking bans, etc would all move to California (or other state). If they believe these laws lead to prosperous, moral societies, they can try to make such a society. At least leave me the hell alone. Yet, this situation cannot happen with a large Federal government which harmonizes all laws. With a large Federal govt, those same people will try to control the whole system.
So, with a diverse political market, yes, many people would seek big govts, but there would still be more choices for those of us who want smaller govts.
Patrick,
The primary responsibility of the US government is to protect the rights and lives of its citizens against foreign threats. Being a fair competitor in the “marketplace of political systems” falls considerably lower in the list of priorities.
Yes, I understand how you could choose this set of consequences (safety, lack of future terrorism) over the set of consequences I argue for (diversity in jurisdictional regulatory choices).
Further, I think Jonathan’s argument fails on its own terms. The US was engaged in destroying a nation that, in both word and deed, presented a threat. Nowhere does Jonathan show that a necessary consequence of this action is a continuing interference in the political structures of other nations. The arguments for war stated that Iraq had violated treaties that ended the last war, aided terrorists, possessed or intended to possess weapons of mass destruction, and was openly hostile to the US. Whether these arguments are valid is a fair question (and a different discussion). The point is that we’re forcing a political change in Iraq to protect the United States, not because representative democracy cannot countenance competitive political systems. Jonathan certainly doesn’t show that the next step is the invasion of Sweden to overthrow socialized medicine.
You might not believe that the War in Iraq is part of a larger War on Terror, but the words and actions of the administration and some of the media indicate otherwise. I do hope Iraq is the end, and that the US govt will end the occupation soon after putting a democracy in place and come home. Yet, I doubt this will be the case. The entire pretext of the War has been to pre-emptively stop govts that might be potentially a threat to the US. Just last week, someone at the National Review called for the overthrow of the Iran govt.
But even if we use the political marketplace analogy, it could be argued that the US is justified in pursuing this war. Just like a tax system, one competitive advantage that a political system could offer over its competitors is the manner in which it protects its citizens. A nation or a culture that fails to defend the lives of its “clientele” against terrorist attacks will quickly find itself looking for new customers.
Agree. However, the result would be a negative if those customers saw the same thing everywhere they went.
Finally, consider the situation under an idealized US federal system. Vermont, years after unsuccessfully invading Massachusetts, begins funding terrorist insurgents in New Hampshire, while violating treaties with New York and developing chemical weapons. The states would probably appeal to the US government. (Find me an analogous entity in the marketplace of nations. The UN?) The result would likely be that the states would band together to implement some sort of sanctions regime. If that proves unsuccessful, wouldn’t you expect them to react militarily? In doing so, have they violated the spirit of federalism?
I assume that the non-Vermont states are imperfect in their own right to various degrees through big govt even if not militarily aggressive. Some have high taxation, stifling regulation, and laws against victimless crimes. Others such as say, Arizona, have low taxation, are business friendly, and generally let you mind your own business. Suppose the non-Vermont states band together and quell Vermont. But in doing so, they also force regulations and laws on Arizona and other states that detract from the attractiveness of Arizona. I don’t see why, in such a hypothetical, I couldn’t desire Arizona to stay as is, and prefer that those in the immediate vicinity of Vermont deal with the threat on their own, rather than bring the US Govt into it. It would be the least worst choice in an imperfect world.
Is that similar to the theory that I could come over to your house every night and beat you over the head and you should do nothing about it because others have a choice of whether they want to hang out with me even if you don’t want to?
I tried to find a similarity between this theory and the argument I presented and couldn’t, so I will have to conclude that no, it is not similar to that theory. If Saddam had actually been beating the US over the head all these years, then there might be a small degree of similiarity, but since that is not the case, no similiarity is apparent.
“Saddam was a tyrant, but there were (very difficult) ways to escape Iraq. Plenty of people emigrated during Saddam’s reign. Some gave up their freedom for trying and failing. The costs of exiting Saddam’s rule were very high, but it was certainly possible.”
Jonathan,
If I decide to change cell phone providers from A to B, and know that I could possibly do it but at great risk to myself and my family, then I am not being served by a fair and free market.
I know you’re talking about consequences rather than morality, but I have a suspicion that ultimately you prefer the free market approach because it maximizes the chance for people to pursue and achieve happiness. Which sounds moral. Anyhow, on to consequences…
1. Provider A, who is a complete shit and a pirate, will have a significant competitive advantage. Saddam can retain his population “customer base” without their approval or permission.
2. The customers who might have chosen Provider B will be tyrannized and largely unable to do so. This prevents B from being rewarded for its desirable service; the business that would be generated by quality service is largely unable to leave its current provider. The difference in quality would have to be so vast as to make risking one’s life worthwhile.
3. The progress of the industry as a whole (both A and B) will be slowed as there will be little competitive incentive for improvement.
Markets can degenerate quickly into simple fighting if there is no one to ensure fair play. When this is the case and when there is no official body to sort things out, there will be forceful struggle between business. Relating this to Iraq, we have no supervising body, but Provider B has a pretty big stick and is tired of PA’s crap.
G,
I certainly understand your point of view; I used to hold it myself. Markets only work when rights are guaranteed by a higher authority. Otherwise, free exchange cannot happen. Thus, govts are instituted among men…
However, most people, including most libertarians, fail to see the disastrous consequences that result from all monopolies, including those that defend rights. Sure, govts are given the mission of protecting rights. Yet, why is that during the 20th century, govts were the biggest violators of rights in the world? Why is it they killed over 100 million of their own people? Security and rights provision is better seen as a scarce good instead of a moral charter. The entire thrust of my original post is based on the premise that the best results occur when there is competition, rather than a monopoly, in the securement of rights. There is no such thing as a completely free market. There is always the risk of violence and fraud, no matter what market you are engaged in.
Your argument that the political market only works when there is someone to ensure fair play has two ramifications which I am not sure you would be entirely willing to agree with:
1) Most of the Anglospheric world lacks this third party to ensure fair play, yet, it has been largely at peace for over 150 years. There is no higher power to make sure that the English speaking nations of the world behave, yet, for many generations now, they have not engaged in war with each other, and have allowed relatively free trade and immigration. It’s also a telling sign that these same nations are among the freest in the world.
2) Your argument logically extends to the espousal of a world government, since the political market can degenerate quickly. Thus, someone needs to ensure fair play. I’m not sure about you, but that is a scary thought. When a world govt exists but fails to secure rights of its people, or turns to democide like so many govts did during the 20th century, where will we run?
The “third party to ensure fair play” argument ultimately rests on the belief that people in power are different from those who are engaging in unfair play. History has shown that they are in fact no different, and when they have monopoly power, they will abuse it. In the event that the current US govt, which violates rights every day, turns truly tyrannous, there needs to be some place to escape to. There needs to be a competing govts that are not beholden to everything the US govt dictates.
In your example, if a third party C were to rule over A and B, a couple of unintended consequences might happen:
1) C would be futile in stopping A
2) A would pay off C
3) The leader of A, being such a tyrant, would leave A behind, and try to gain control of C. Is it any wonder that so many thugs are members of the UN?
The best results from any market occur not when a third party steps in to ensure fair play (sounds a lot like Hobbes), but when individuals have the ability to Exit to competing vendors.
My main issue with Jonathan’s theory is this, if you are in the marketplace selling your wares and minding your own business just like everyone else but then one of the other sellers decides to “tamper” with everyone else’s business for his own gain, then what do you do? Do you let him terrorize everyone around him and eventually even yourself? Or do you take him out? Even the most free-market capitalism has to stand up to the bullies.
Ms. Dani,
In your scenario, I think we can all agree that rights provision is best seen as a scarce resource, not some sort of ‘moral charter’ that empowers a third party.
Hopefully, in the marketplace, there is security available to prevent this. If not, I would move to a different marketplace that values the presence of prosperous vendors.
If I were, for example, the manager of a Gap store at the mall, and I found that another store in the mall was stealing from me, encouraging shoplifing from my store, or breaking in after hours, my best course of action would be to either hire purchase the services of extra security personnel or move my store to a different mall. Vendors moving to different malls is the best way to make sure that malls have an incentive to protect their businesses.
Unsustainable argument.
1. Spatial restrictions.
A country has borders; it “owns” all material within certain guidelines. If the most appealing (pro-liberty) country was Bhutan it wouldn’t make a peck of difference.
The country’s size restricts the number of possible inhabitants.
And say Libya, or even America, was the undisputed champion in citizen freedom and three fourths of the world’s population managed to squeeze in to this eden. The rest of the world would be left to the squabbling not-so-gooders.
Say a crazy-ass dictator in Saudi Arabia wants to burn all his oil. He does so. And significantly hurts the atmosphere.
Everyone suffers.
Fact of the matter is some communal property exists. Whether we like it or not. Earth’s just that way. Doesn’t mean we have to go all communist, just that it makes sense communalize control of the really important shit that, not only can we not live without, but that any wacko in Somewhereistan can mess with if he feels like it. When each country is self-sufficient in its resources and independent from all other countries, thingsâ??ll be different.
2. Finite options.
Thereâ??s only a few countries. Can be only a few countries. If the dice of geopolitics, war, insurrection and corruption decide that every country is a dictatorship, then every country is a dictatorship.
Oh, and power corrupts, so countries tend to lean away from freedom, when left to their own devices.
Iâ??m not saying that direct intervention between countries is a good idea. Itâ??s hardly ever done with the intent of increasing net personal freedom and even then it usually backfires.
â?¦But those backfires happen because of nationalism, that dumb-ass collectivism that happens when you decide to divide people up into teams. People decide those teams are worth more than their lives and then things go really, really, really bad.
The only way around having a bunch of teams jockeying for position all around the world (and, in the process, stepping on all the little men) is to collapse all the domestic functions of those teams into one big, universal team. Of course this would usually be also a really bad idea, because then whatever corruption takes place is totally unavoidable. But, hey, weâ??re there anyhow. Hegemony and all that stuff.
Trick is to make sure the global government is as pro individual freedom as possible. Small (global) government.
Jonathan,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Let me try to clarify my viewpoint.
First, while I understand how you see it as a logical extension of my argument (where there’s no one to enforce fair play, free trade is not really possible), I am not advocating a world government. It scares me for the same reasons it scares you.
The thing is that the central point of your argument, ” The best results from any market occur not when a third party steps in to ensure fair play (sounds a lot like Hobbes), but when individuals have the ability to Exit to competing vendors,” assumes that the individuals have that ability (and in that case, we are in agreement). In this case the ability is severely encroached, to a point where most people have neither the physical means to Exit, as you say, nor the inclination to risk life and limb to do so. To be sure you’ll have exceptions, but the main point remains: the freedom required for the market to function properly does not exist. The people who want to buy the good you propose, security, do not have access to the vendor. No, I don’t think that having an overseer of governments would help; I think that we have to accept that nations are in competition and won’t always get along. In this case, our nation has been more successful in competition to date, which has made it more powerful, and has made it possible for us to go take out Saddam. Taking out Saddam has had the effect both of freeing his former citizens to influence the market, and of potentially creating a new free nation. I would agree with Stormy Dragon’s earlier post that in this case the freedom of the market has been restored to a degree by our action, so long as we don’t go making a colony of Iraq, which is a separate issue.
Jonathon- Didn’t you just post a day or two ago about the essential human characteristics? Now you talk of a free market political world? The first precludes the second.
Federalism is a beautiful thing, but it still provides for a higher authority.
“My main issue with Jonathan’s theory is this, if you are in the marketplace selling your wares and minding your own business just like everyone else but then one of the other sellers decides to ‘tamper’ with everyone else’s business for his own gain, then what do you do? Do you let him terrorize everyone around him and eventually even yourself? Or do you take him out?”
You’re talking about the US, right? The nation that has attacked other nations 60 or so times since WWII, not one of which had attacked it?
Jonathon- Didn’t you just post a day or two ago about the essential human characteristics? Now you talk of a free market political world? The first precludes the second.
I’m not sure I understand.
Federalism is a beautiful thing, but it still provides for a higher authority.
Do you support a world govt?
>You’re talking about the US, right?
>The nation that has attacked other
>nations 60 or so times since WWII, not
>one of which had attacked it?
I reject your assertion that the US has never been attacked by any of the parties it’s engaged with in military conflict with since WWII.
Would you care to back your statement up with any evidence?
Stormy Dragon wrote:
I reject your assertion that the US has never been attacked by any of the parties it’s engaged with in military conflict with since WWII.
Would you care to back your statement up with any evidence?
Stormy, I think you’re mixing up who the burden of proof lies on. Here’s a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Now I’m just wondering what nation-state gathered its armies and invaded America over the past 60 years.
Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Lebanon? Panama? The Balkans? Iraq?
Feel free to post pics too.
What’s funny to me is that this premise has been sarcastically used to attack libertarianism:
Yes, you can emigrate, just as you could buy a different car even though your favorite company doesn’t produce cars which let you travel at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces EXACTLY what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create yourself.
There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emigrate. They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves territorially.
Yes, it’s specious and willfully stupid. But that’s because it relies on the same flawed premise – that we can liken coercive governments and their power over their citizens and subjects to free market interactions. That premise itself is specious and stupid, and there really isn’t any point in trying to pursue the logic to a conclusion that the toppling of a dictator is, in and of itself, a loss to humanity.
Yes, it’s specious and willfully stupid. But that’s because it relies on the same flawed premise – that we can liken coercive governments and their power over their citizens and subjects to free market interactions. That premise itself is specious and stupid, and there really isn’t any point in trying to pursue the logic to a conclusion that the toppling of a dictator is, in and of itself, a loss to humanity.
That is a moral argument. I am making a consequential argument (hence the title of the post). Of course dictators are a loss to humanity. So is the US govt and all the govts of the world. That is not the point.
The point is rather, living in the immoral world we live in which dictators are present and liberal democracies take 50% of income, what actions will create the best outcomes for as many people as possible? The more power the US govt achieves on a supra-national scale, the greater the loss of freedom on a supra-national scale. The time is soon coming when hiding income through offshore banking and the like will be available to middle-class Americans, when multiple data havens thrive in other nations, and when anonymous digital cash backed by commodities is issued by other nations, and this will be a huge net gain for liberty-seeking individuals. OTOH, the US govt will try to stop all of these things from happening by invoking the War on Terror. That is a bad consequence for liberty. It’s prudent to not encourage this.
There are dozens of essential characteristics that make us, such as the seven deadly sins. Political freedom on a global scale is impossible.
World Govt? Yikes! I’m just alluding to the fact that as much as we both are states right advocates, there are times when we would point to the Constitution as a higher authority to settle intra or inter state conflict.
>Would you care to back your statement
>up with any evidence?
>Stormy, I think you’re mixing up who
>the burden of proof lies on. Here’s a
>refresher:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
1.) This isn’t a court or formal debate, so there is no burden of proof. In particular, you’re making an appeal to ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html). The fact I haven’t disproved your statement doesn’t make it true. What evidence do you have that it is true?
2.) Even if this were a formal debate, _you_ are the one who made the assertion, namely that the US has never been attacked by any of the nations it’s engaged since WWII. So the burden of proof would be yours, not mine.
3.) Even if the burden of proof were mine, it’s quite easy to provide counter examples to your assertion:
We attacked Afghanistan in response to an attack on us in the form of planes being flown into skyscrapers.
We attacked Grenada in response to US citizens being taken hostage.
We attacked Panama in response to US citizens being taken hostage.
We attacked Libya in response to US citizens being killed in the Lockerby bombing.
etc..
>Now I’m just wondering what nation-
>state gathered its armies and invaded
>America over the past 60 years.
Strawman.
There’s other unlawful acts of force nations may attempt against the US other than overt invansion. You assertion was that we’ve never been attacked, not that we’ve never been invaded.
“That is a moral argument. I am making a consequential argument (hence the title of the post).”
Pointing out the absurdity of equating governments and the people under their power with actors in a free market isn’t a moral assertion. It’s acknowledging a crackpot premise that requires ignoring key features of of these relationships to try to make an argument with it.
Pointing out the absurdity of equating governments and the people under their power with actors in a free market isn’t a moral assertion. It’s acknowledging a crackpot premise that requires ignoring key features of of these relationships to try to make an argument with it.
If I had actually done that, you might be correct. But since I didn’t, you are incorrect. Of course there isn’t a free market under a govt. I doubt you’ll find any libertarian who disagrees with that.
But, the fact is, there is no world govt. Govts do not have a higher power to adjudicate disputes between them, nor to facilitate trade among them, nor to police crime between them. Libertarians should point this out often, because this shows that trade and peace can happen without a Hobbesian higher authority. This is not a “crackpot premise”; it’s reality.
There is indeed a market for laws across countries. Corporations try to take advantage of the laws of the Cayman Islands to get around the laws of the US. Individuals open Swiss bank accounts for privacy. Others go to India to buy organs that are illegal to sell in the US. Some go to the Netherlands for drugs and prostitutes. People from Mexico often come to the US for welfare and free public education. Others from Cuba risk life and limb for the relatively free laws of the US compared to those laws under Castro.
There is a diversity of legal systems in the world, none of which meet my criteria for a ‘libertarian’ legal system, but none the less, the diversity exists. Libertarians can either acknowledge reality and base their arguments on it, or they can deny reality because it doesn’t meet their intuitive ideological bias. I prefer doing the former. It’s much more convincing to ordinary people.
I can’t think of a sillier analogy unless you’d care to call illegal aliens “shoplifters”.
There was over a decade of UN sanctions against Iraq. If France and Russia had been willing to enforce the UN sanctions and inspections then there would have been no reason for the US to look for another answer. That answer, right or wrong, being the 2nd US invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with governments being a free market where the relative worth of govenment being measured by the number of immigrants it attracts.
“A better case against the War can be made for purely consequential reasons…
Gee.
Maybe you’d be willing to stand in front of one of those mass burial sites over there and tell that to the relatives who are combing the sand for body parts of their relatives.
I can’t think of a sillier analogy unless you’d care to call illegal aliens “shoplifters”.
Again, this was not a moral argument. You see illegal aliens as being intruders; I desire freedom of association. From a policy perspective, I understand if you don’t want freedom of association in the face of a massive welfare state. Yet, this argument is unrelated to the argument I made, which was the potential consequences for all of us of an emboldened US foreign policy.
That answer, right or wrong, being the 2nd US invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with governments being a free market where the relative worth of govenment being measured by the number of immigrants it attracts.
I’m glad you recognize that your argument has nothing to do with my argument. But just to be precise, nowhere did I claim that the “relative worth of government” is “measured by the number of immigrants it attracts.”
In fact I stated that there are some governments that attract immigrants because of massive welfare states, and I would not want to live under such governments.
Maybe you’d be willing to stand in front of one of those mass burial sites over there and tell that to the relatives who are combing the sand for body parts of their relatives.
Believe me, I empathize what the Iraqis are going through. They have been put through hell by Saddam, and also in part by UN policies which the US wholeheartedly supported in the 90s. Yet, the US govt cannot go around the world freeing everyone living under a dictator. The resources are not there. And even if it tried, in the process it would transform into something much worse than Saddam on a global scale.
>1.) This isn’t a court or formal >debate, so there is no burden of proof. >In particular, you’re making an appeal >to ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.>org/ignorant.html). The fact I haven’t >disproved your statement doesn’t make >it true. What evidence do you have that >it is true?
Wait, who cares what venue this lame debate is taking place. If I am asking you for evidence of an invaded America I would appreciate being shown the error in my ways.
>2.) Even if this were a formal debate, >_you_ are the one who made the >assertion, namely that the US has never >been attacked by any of the nations >it’s engaged since WWII. So the burden >of proof would be yours, not mine.
Actually, NickDanger made the assertion, I seconded it. Hehe, I don’t think you see the irony of trying to prove something that did not occur. If it did not occur, then there is no evidence for it. It would be much easier to prove that it did occur, because you would simply have to show evidence, like newspaper clippings, photos, interviews, etc.
>3.) Even if the burden of proof were >mine, it’s quite easy to provide >counter examples to your assertion:
>We attacked Afghanistan in response to >an attack on us in the form of planes >being flown into skyscrapers.
The nation-state of Afghanistan did not mobilize it’s resources to attack various buildings in New York and D.C. So far, the best guess and most widely accepted theory is that a guy by the name of Osama bin Laden financed/organized an elaborate plan which was carried out on 9/11.
>We attacked Grenada in response to US >citizens being taken hostage.
Again, Grenada did not send troops onto any American soil.
>We attacked Panama in response to US >citizens being taken hostage.
Yes and no. Noriega was backing out of his deal with the CIA or double-crossing them or something to that effect. Additionally, no Panamanian army set foot here.
>We attacked Libya in response to US >citizens being killed in the Lockerby >bombing.
Ad nauseum, no troops landed on the shores of Galveston Bay.
>Strawman.
>There’s other unlawful acts of force >nations may attempt against the US >other than overt invansion. You >assertion was that we’ve never been >attacked, not that we’ve never been >invaded.
Fuck, if you’re going to be picky about semantics, I’m sure pollutants produced in “rogue” nations somehow have deletrious effects on you and I. Is that a malicious and calculated attack?
A couple other notes, first I would stop being a collectivist by saying “we” all the time. You were personally never attacked (and probably neither was your family). Also, your appeal to “lawfulness” is on shaky ground as it assumes artificial “laws” are somehow legitimate.
If I had actually done that, you might be correct. But since I didn’t, you are incorrect. Of course there isn’t a free market under a govt. I doubt you’ll find any libertarian who disagrees with that.
OK, I see the problem: we’re using very different premises. You’re using such premises as, If a government exists, a free market can’t exist, There is no definition of “free” that permits a government, etc.
Just to point out, though, there are rather a lot of minarchists who believe that a “free market” can exist under a government, and who would prefer a system where they may freely engage in non-coercive interactions with the government enforcing contracts, etc, as opposed to dealing with other actors who can and will use force against them if they think they can get away with it. So, yes, there are libertarians who would disagree.
But, the fact is, there is no world govt. Govts do not have a higher power to adjudicate disputes between them, nor to facilitate trade among them, nor to police crime between them. Libertarians should point this out often, because this shows that trade and peace can happen without a Hobbesian higher authority. This is not a “crackpot premise”; it’s reality.
Nations in the global “state of nature” tend to go to war and use other coercive measures against each other rather a lot. People tend to want to avoid this sort of existence, making this a terribly unconvincing argument to advance if you want to encourage limiting, shrinking, or removing the state.
…Not to mention that the ability of nations to engage in treaties some of the time has absolutely nothing to do with the point that the government-citizen relationship is not a market one.
There is indeed a market for laws across countries. Corporations try to take advantage of the laws of the Cayman Islands to get around the laws of the US. Individuals open Swiss bank accounts for privacy. Others go to India to buy organs that are illegal to sell in the US. Some go to the Netherlands for drugs and prostitutes. People from Mexico often come to the US for welfare and free public education. Others from Cuba risk life and limb for the relatively free laws of the US compared to those laws under Castro.
There is a diversity of legal systems in the world, none of which meet my criteria for a ‘libertarian’ legal system, but none the less, the diversity exists. Libertarians can either acknowledge reality and base their arguments on it, or they can deny reality because it doesn’t meet their intuitive ideological bias. I prefer doing the former. It’s much more convincing to ordinary people.
You might have a plausible argument if you limited your examples to those where the choices can be made without evading restrictions and punishment of some governments. You might be able to argue that the states of the US constituted a market (though then, you’d be up against the Constitutional onus upon the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government for each state). However, most libertarians and, more importantly in your scheme, most “ordinary people” don’t consider a choice as one in a “market” if people risk getting shot while trying to pursue it.
I admit a morbid curiosity as to why you think the “ordinary people” will find the contention “toppling Hussein was bad because it shrank the world government market” any more sensible and acceptable than some bit of libertarian “ideological” rhetoric.