The Libertarian case for intervention in Libya
Posted on March 3, 2011This is going to get me some flak – indeed on Twitter it already has – but I am a libertarian who supports a no-fly zone and airstrikes in Libya against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces. It’s not a side issue or an add-on; from my perspective there is an inherently libertarian case for such intervention.
A lot of libertarians will tell you that the proposal of a no-fly zone, which involves bombing Libyan military air control and radar stations then shooting down any airborne agressors, is an imperialist adventure. They’re wrong – no matter how much they bandy about the inaccurate term “invasion” for what has been suggested for Libya, this is an act of protection.
And protection is the other side of the libertarian coin. As a libertarian, I believe that we should be free to do as we please with our own bodies, lives and property and that the State and other individuals should be prevented from stopping us doing otherwise, or using violence against us.
It’s that “and” which is so crucial. There clearly is a role for some form a criminal justice system that deters people from inflicting violence on me or infringing my personal freedom, and punishes them if they do. There is a role for a military which prevents foreign aggressors from doing the same.
That’s all well and good within our nation – but what responsibilities, if any, do we have to those who live abroad?
If we recognise that each and every human has a fundamental right to freedom – and as libertarians we certainly should – then obviously the ideal scenario would be for every nation in the world to adopt the libertarian system of allowing their people to be free and protecting them against internal and external aggressors.
Sadly we don’t live in a perfect world, and there are many nations that oppress, torture and murder their own citizens and those of other States. Libya being a prime example.
Where people are oppressed and want our help, how is it un-libertarian to offer them that protection from aggression that their own State should give but doesn’t? More importantly, how is it libertarian to stand by while someone takes someone’s freedom from them and causes them harm against their will?
Old Holborn, for example, argues that being a libertarian means just looking after your own – but I just don’t see it. There’s no unjust or unjustified infringement of a mugger’s freedom if you stop him attacking someone on the street, and there’s a clear improvement in the freedom of the person who would otherwise have been his victim.
When it comes down to it, I’m proud to be a libertarian who believes the people of Benghazi should not slaughtered by a tyrant, who believes we should not be deaf to their pleas for some protection and who believes, therefore, that intervention in Libya is the right thing to do.
Tags: Benghazi, Colonel Gaddafi, Foreign Policy, Intervention, Libertarianism, Libya, NATO, No-Fly Zone, UN
With respect, Gadaffi is not slaughtering innocent protesters. He is fighting armed rebels
If you REALLY want to protect innocent protesters, Yemen would be a good place to start. 30 of them have just been shot for er…protesting. In the meantime, here’s a picture of William Hague and the President of er..Yemen
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/5309/World/Region/British-foreign-secretary-visits-Yemen,-after-Tuni.aspx
18.03.2011 13:43
There are people who believe in liberty, and then there are people who are interested in nothing except in their own personal liberty and sod the rest. The latter are faux libertarians – isolationist Tories who find the modern Conservative Party unsatisfactory.
18.03.2011 13:49
It is wholly compatible with Libertarianism that I can use force to defend myself or another from attack. If this is right when I’ve got a gun pointed at me it must also be right when I’ve got an army pointed at me.
18.03.2011 15:23
Excellent. I look forward to you calling for a similar intervention in Bahrain.
18.03.2011 15:48
If 40% of a country were fighting the other 60% of the country; would the fact that you happened to agree with the first 40% be justification for preventing the second from fighting?
It isn’t Gadaffi versus the rest of the country; if it were, then it would be over quickly. There are a large number of Libyans on both sides, and I really don’t see why it is our place to tell either of them how to run their country.
I find it strange that a self described libertarian has forgotten about the rights of that part of the Libyan population which doesn’t want a no-fly zone.
I’m afraid I can only see that this is a perfect example of why the libertarian principle of non-intervention is correct.
18.03.2011 16:26
Where do you get the 40/60 figure? Nothing could be further from the truth. If Gaddafi had 60% or even 40% of the country, he would not have had to hire mercenaries from other countries. Also, Gaddafi had about 1800 tanks and the freedom fighters 0 at the outset. Gaddafi was prepared to put a gun to the heads of the people he could get to fight for him, and shot those who would not fight fellow Libyans. He told fighters that they were fighting Al Qaeda and crusaders – when they discovered that they were fighting fellow LIbyans many defected if they could. Gaddafi hired thugs from Belasarus to shoot any defectors. Have you seen the “arms” of the rebels/freedom fighters – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyRBUAEneM.
There is not on iota of truth or value in your post.
I am not a LIbertarian but I support all those who fight for basic human rights. And I think at the end of the day, the performance of NATO will be shown to have been exemplary. (I was against the disastrous Iraq invasion.)
17.06.2011 02:26
I like the cut of your jib Sir.
19.03.2011 12:24
I simply don’t see how a libertarian could advocate potential wars in Libya, Zimbabwe and presumably Bahrain, Yemen and other areas where administrations are battling rebels.
19.03.2011 13:02
It seems that the only countries that “neo-cons” want to intervene in have huge amounts of natural resources, There is the Ivory Coast where a dictator is refusing to give up power after loosing elections, why is Cameron not advocating a liberal intervention there. Also how about Libyans who support Gaddafi, are they not entitled to have their man in power,?
19.03.2011 13:36
Interesting point, Adam Bell. No doubt you believe non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War was correct and regard our intervention in that 1939 spat between German and Polish dictators as stupidly immoral. I’m not with you but I admire your intellectual consistency.
19.03.2011 14:37
In the absence of a global government that would act as the libertarian’s strong, central authority, surely the United Nations is the right vehicle for action against Libya … and the likes of Bahrain and Yemen (which aren’t as bad as Libya?). Forceful diplomacy might make them change their ways (over the long term), and we can always stop giving them money and legitimacy by paying them visits.
19.03.2011 15:51
A libertarian should attempt to promote liberty, as it is in his or her interest. I think there is a fair case for saying that there would be a net gain of liberty by removing Ghaddaffi, or at least preventing him from excercising his malign control. On the other hand, it seems to me that facilitating a Shia takeover in Bahrain would result in a net loss of liberty- the emergence of a theocratic Shia state.
19.03.2011 16:48
So you believe that the state is justified in levying compulsory taxation from its citizens in order to help people abroad whose lives and freedom are at risk? I fail to see how this is consistent with libertarianism – is it not up to individual citizens to decide whether they support that use of their money? If not, how do we distinguish between this nonconsensual use of their money and, for instance, using it to provide people abroad (or at home for that matter) with other things they need – medicine or benefits, for instance?
19.03.2011 18:32
Mark, if Britain intends to play on the world stage then it needs to ensure adequate funding of those tasked with doing it. This venture, and it seems as if every new government we elect soon starts dabbling somewhere, will start on the back of further defence cuts.
Frankly I am not keen on funding this nor am I in asking those of our citizens in the armed forces to do yet more of the world’s policing. Not that this means I am insensitive to the situation in Libya, but we lack the treasure and military force to take on yet more. Afghanistan is plenty. Let the Arab nations put themselves on the line for their own people for once.
19.03.2011 19:22
Well said Mark.
19.03.2011 19:49
Agreed – well said, Mark!
There’s nothing inconsistent with being a libertarian and wanting to help others whose rights are being violated — I’m tired of telling people I’m a libertarian only to get the stock “you mean you wouldn’t help another person in the street?” response. Of course I would. Helping people crying out under state repression is practically a moral obligation for a good libertarian, I think!
Protect the rights of others as you would wish to see your own rights protected.
Glad to see I’m not the only person who thinks this way.
19.03.2011 23:36
And how do you feel about innocent civilians being killed by tomahawk missiles? … or is that ok if these civilians support Gaddafi? These innocent civilians in Benghazi? …. some seem to have guns, tanks, anti-aircraft (which they shoot down their own aircraft).
19.03.2011 23:49
Absolutely. Libertarianism (minarchy) and conservatism (traditional) are characterized by not doing anything until there is a real threat which is when you actively intervene in what can seem a somewhat arbitrary and heavy handed fashion.
20.03.2011 00:05
I wish I can say I couldn’t agree more, as I also wish for individual liberty to be unrestricted on anyone and everyone, but if we say its fine for this government to use the tax payer money of its own people to enforce or kill a dictator, then this IS government going out of bounds and it being a policemen of the world (Where do we cross the line?). The disagreement of intervention is not based on only that govnt should let people be. This of course is not the case locally where the least of government libertarians would advocate is one that would protect their natural rights from those who infringe it.
I would instead advocate us as restricted free people to use our OWN resources to help deprived individuals as much as we say that charity should not be done by the state, also if we wish to put our lives on the line for another nation, we should be able to do so, without using govnt tactics as theft to fund it.
Yet I must remind myself and all, that this same state as with the western backed monarchies of the gulf nations has deprived its people by taking their right to arms and self-defence. Also, this coalition government is no libertarian government, is it? In one of the recent speeches of PM Cameron he used a term that is also used among neo-conservatives and its “Muscular Liberalism” I would reference you to this journal article: http://bit.ly/dV5nH4
You point out correctly the role of the state in justice, but I would disagree that the military has a duty to topple dictators, that’s not libertarianism, that’s neo-conservatism, is it not?
I am personally a libertarian who thinks that tax payers’ money should be used for the tax payer or else this theft has no use.
In the end, I would argue the state in itself has no international duties, but the service of its nation without force and coercion, which is not the case today in the UK. If some individuals wish to be of honour and put their life on the line for their fellow man, they have the right to do so, along with whoever wishes to join them and/or fund them, provided they don’t force steal people’s money to fund it.
20.03.2011 01:28
[...] and morality of such decisions aside (I’ll leave you to the read the opposing views of Mark Wallace and Anna Raccoon amongst others on this), it is the practicality of enforcing the gradiose ideas of [...]
20.03.2011 09:17
I agree with you Mark – although we are probably seeing a manipulated view of this, its hard to escape noticing that this despot is using weapons of war against his own people.
Turning the other cheek is not what being a libertarian is truly about. Sometimes you have to step outside your own barriers and come to the aid of those suffering at the hands of a despot….. You just wonder why it has taken us so many years?
20.03.2011 11:04
As others have pointed the double/triple standards are too blatant. The only reason that David Blair has committed UK forces is to protect BP’s multi billion pound investments after HMG stupidly backed the armed rebels straight away (who are they actually?) and called them ‘peaceful protestors’ and ‘democratic’ – what nonsense
zorro
20.03.2011 15:49
In my experience, too many libertarians are devout idealists without a scintilla of pragmatism in their bodies. I have long considered myself as closer to this “-ism” than to any other, but to allow ones text book theory to give free rain to an insane homicidal maniac, like Gadaffi, makes no sense to me. This barbarian pig, and his African mercinaries, was a mere 24 hours from raping and pilaging Bengazi.
When my ideology conflicts with my common sense, then I adjust my ideology, not my common sense. Well done, Mark. I’m with you on this one.
20.03.2011 17:09
Non one has mentioned why we haven’t attacked Saudi Arabia. Syria, The Yemen, Lebanon and, oh, so many other countries ? There must be an agenda.
20.03.2011 18:27
I’ve never understood the way in which (particularly American) libertarianism suddenly becomes a nationalist collectivist ideology when it comes to foreign policy. If you don’t like states, or arbitrary collectives, what difference does it make to you if someone if Libyan or British? Who is “us” and “them” here? By all means object to it being tax funded, or make an argument that the collateral damage isn’t justified by the initial intention to defend innocents – but those are rather more nuanced arguments than that “national sovereignty,” the absurd modern equivalent of the divine right of Kings, is inviolate under any circumstances.
To a libertarian, there should be no “their” country which has a right to be run in whatever way the group that succeeds in exterminating all competitors decides. There are only individual people who have inalienable rights to persona security, property, self-defence, and to request the assistance of others to provide this defence.
21.03.2011 10:28
It’s odd how some soi disant libertarians elevate the rights of tyrannical rulers over those of unfree individuals. And of course only acting where it’s possible to do so is simply practical.
22.03.2011 09:42
[...] written before about the libertarian case for intervention in Libya, which is very strong in my view. Through the no-fly zone and airstrikes against the military of [...]
26.05.2011 12:07