Every time I read about foreign interventionism on Wikipedia, I see a sentence like this, and yes I am going to paraphrase a tiny bit:
- “The non-aggression principle holds that war of aggression is inherently immoral, but permits war to be waged in self-defense and defense of others.”
Is that so, Wikipedia? Well, if that is the case then I guess Non-Aggression Principle has room for foreign interventionisms that focus on self-defense and on defense of others. But allow to verify this before anyone calls this a judgement.
Let us get a basic knowing of what the NAP is before we dig into this. Apparently it is a moral stance that forbids any behaviors that violate Western libertarianism’s norms of property rights and of human rights.
Human rights and Property rights are guarded by most fellow libertarians using the Non-Aggression Principle as a protection from behaviors that are Malum In Se.
Self Defense And Defense Of Others
Since it is evident in privately owned but publicly known facts of Foreign interventionism that the Non-Aggression Principle allows Defensive War to be waged, but not War of Aggression, that sounds like the NAP’s morality of war is to only wage war to defend innocent lives. Or at least it sounds this way to me.
But of course, for every libertarian idea that this libertarian (me) can agree with some views of though not all views, there has to be one with no positive traits. This for me is where Non-interventionism comes into play.
According to Non-interventionism, a free society should only wage Defensive war to defend its own people, and even then only within its borders. Defending soil is (or comes off to normal people and to me as) valued in place of defending people in Non-interventionist foreign policy.
‘Humanitarian intervention’ is the most common phrase for Defensive war waged to defend innocent lives on foreign soil, as far as I can tell. It sits well with the most basic, simple form of the Non-Aggression Principle I think because the NAP allows deadly violence to be used for self-defense and defense of others, and Humanitarian intervention is about nothing but the ‘defense of others’ component.
Does Preventive War Sit well with the NAP?
I say it depends on what the warring nation is trying to prevent, if its to prevent aggression it is NAP-abiding, if its to prevent defense it is NAP-breaking.
But objectively, a tyrannical nation wages preventive war to try to prevent a free society from defending itself or from defending others, as was proven to us by Imperial Japan with the Pearl Harbor attacks.
Meanwhile, a free society only wages preventive war in, you guessed it, self-defense and defense of others. And that is only if most of its Legislative Branch votes in favor of allowing the Executive to do so. This is evident in every time a free society has ever cooked up a preventive military action since World War II, and before that Global Conflict as well.
Preventing a free society from defending itself breaks the NAP, while preventing a tyranny from sponsoring a terror attack obeys the NAP. Or at least, thats how I look at it from the most honest & simple angle I can put together.
What About Regime Change?
I would say that regime change can morally only be done by a free society to a tyranny. But I do think there is no job to do regime change.
Tyrannies by nature are national-scale and often planetary-scale violations of the Non-Aggression Principle and so logically by the NAP viewed the way most libertarians view it, respecting tyrannies’ sovereignties is breaking the NAP.
Of course I do not want any Western country, not America not anyone else, nation building. I would like to see policies of defensive posture put in place. History reveals that nation-building, unilateralism, and letting formerly enemy-ruled citizens set up any kind of democracy they want no matter how despotic it is; all foster chaos and empower the rise of threats like the Salafi Movement and its various sponsors.
But how is this logic not the mainstream of libertarians? I am guessing the libertarian label has been stolen by hipster anarchists. Let me explain why I think that.
Libertarian ideals were first promoted to the values of a culture in Western Culture with the writings of John Locke. He wrote about the libertarian principles of civil liberties, political freedom, rule of law, republic, economic freedom and laissez-faire in enough different pieces of literature that in the 1690’s the first ever Western libertarians were revolting against and overthrowing Political Christian monarchies and changing their own regimes into republics that abided by libertarian ideals. Nine decades later the United States would be another one of these Western libertarian republics, born out of forcing the UK out of the North American continent, much the same way Canada was born in the early 19th century.
Bottom line, the old-school libertarians forced libertarian values onto Christianity, Judaism and innumerable other organized religions around the world up until 1950. They waged Liberation War in self-defense and to some degree defense of others. As my one of my favorite authors ever, Keith Farrell, puts it:
- “The truth is liberty is a rare thing in the world, and has only been the norm where and when people had killed to establish it.”
And yes, this is a fact of life that I can see being on-par with the NAP but most libertarians don’t for reasons I personally don’t classify as reasons.
Non-interventionism stupefies the NAP by convincing libertarians that a free society’s right to defend whoever is very limited and that the reasons for limits are infallible and should not be challenged ever. This I know is how the stupefying occurs as I remember the behavior of most of my fellow libertarians, even very recently with the allegedly “Libertarian” Party violating the civil liberty and Libertarian Ideal of Freedom of Expression by banning one of its own candidates, Austin Petersen, for disagreeing with them on whether the NAP has any viability at all.
That’s at least how I suspect Non-interventionism munches and crunches away at libertarian understanding of Libertarian Values even if that understanding is simply courtesy of Webster Dictionary and/or Wikipedia.
I think it is rather obvious that Non-interventionism makes an airhead out of the Non-Aggression Principle. I also think every form of libertarianism has its own form of the NAP. Matter a fact no two libertarians who support the NAP have the same idea of what it is beyond an ethical barrier meant to guard human rights and property rights.
No, I have not stated my opinion on the NAP. I just know though that when it comes to taxes and regulation for example, and in this topic how much there is to the NAP, I tend to be kind of an ultra-minimalist. Anyways, thanks for the read