Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Like Pejman--from whom I found this article--I'm regrettably late to this TCS piece on libertarian hawks.....an area of particular importance to Neolibertarians, who are faced with the difficult task of finding a common ground between pragmatic (small "l") libertarian principles and Realist foreign policy. (as opposed to the naive idealism of the Libertarians) When we finally compile a list of Important Neolibertarian Articles, this essay by Max Borders should be included. Is it possible for one to be libertarian about policies at home and neo-conservative about policies abroad? After all, isn't the principle of non-coercion incompatible with the interventionist policies of the current Administration? Simply put: is there such an animal as a libertarian hawk and if he exists, why do we so seldom hear from him?(One would think Max Borders had never read QandO. The mere idea......!) His answer cuts to an important distinction between ideological Libertarian thought, and Neolibertarian thought. Indeed, Borders picks up on themes I've expressed many times before.... The libertarian hawk takes her cues from Hobbes, not Locke, as the spaces mostly untouched by globalization are, in her view, like a state-of-nature. She sees threats that organize themselves in the shadows beyond civilization; operating, no less, in an age of deadly weapons proliferation. She fears the world's great, but nimble powers coalescing into a slothful and ineffectual global body -- where the toughest decisions of life and limb must be made in committee. She understands that freedom does not drop like manna from heaven, but is earned drop-for-drop and coin-for-coin by the sacrifices of blood and treasure.The ideological Libertarian objects, saying "but Individual Rights are sacrosanct! They cannot be violated, else you are not truly a Libertarian!" That is, indeed, consistent with their philosophy--and that of John Locke--in which it is held that Rights are a fundamental fact; a precept for all further conclusions. Except, there is absolutely nothing in nature that would lead us to that conclusion. To be sure, a very good and consistent case can be made that Rights are a good thing, and that humans should have rights. Indeed, across much of civilization, that is an assumption to which we pay lip service. But that's very different from the actual fundamental existence--"from our Creator" like "some Cartesian substance that animates the body" as Borders puts it--of Rights. Humans, in reality, have no more "rights" than do animals--who, it should be said, do have their "Animal Rights" defenders....though, it doesn't seem to be working out for them--though, we're certainly more capable of claiming, and defending, them. And how does all of that relate to Libertarianism and Neolibertarianism? Simply put, Libertarians assert Rights as a fundamental precept, which is a false premise on which to build a foreign policy. It would be as if a group claimed "equality" was a precept of their foreign policy, therefore they could never support any war in which one nation was superior to another. (the "Pick on Somebody Your Own Size" policy) Regardless of the merits of the foreign policy qua philosophy, it's not a very pragmatic policy for ensuring the survival and propogation of your political and moral philosophy. Bluntly: principles are lovely.....less so, if you're dead. This leaves the Neolibertarians--a more pragmatic sort--prone to a less dovish foreign policy. While the philosophies of libertarianism are centered around an idealized end-state of Individual Rights, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the world is Hobbesian. Our preference for Rights will not stop somebody else from making our life, as it were, "nasty, brutish and short". There is simply no way we can simultaneously achieve libertarian ends, and fail to recognize that the world does not, without an overarching power that does not currently exist, abide by libertarian processes. As Hobbes wrote "if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies". The dovish Libertarians would have us fight the battle with one hand tied by philosophy. Our enemies recognize no such stricture. It's well and good to adopt ideals as goals. It's quite another thing to ignore the extant rules of the game and build a foreign policy--which requires a recognition of reality--on idealism. Libertarians see Individual Rights as both an end, and a means to that end. Neolibertarians, on the other hand, recognize that Individual Rights are an end....and, except insofar as they are recognized and enforced, no more. |
|||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
