The question that many of you will assume I am answering was clearly (and emphatically) intended for someone else, so instead of answering it I’ll be making comments that, given the timing and the subject matter, just happen to answer the question anyways. I don’t want to do so directly because I would prefer it if Dr. Delacroix kept pestering Brandon and left me out of it. I do not want to draw his ire. I’m too busy with other things. So, this piece, and it’s similarity to recent pieces by Brandon and Andrew is coincidence and nothing more, I assure you. Just so you are not totally confused by what I am referring to, here is the question (that I remind you I am not specifically or directly answering):
This is for Brandon:
A question: If you were 100% convinced that Assad of Syria had used chemical weapons on civilians, would it affect your judgment about the desirability of American intervention in Syria?
I know it will sound eerily similar to the following question(s), but that sort of thing happens I guess:
So, say there is this country, this regime (you’ll assume it anyways, so let’s call it “Syria under Assad”) that has weapons, perhaps even the chemical variety. It has used them on its own population, threatens to use them again, and likely will make good on that threat. Let’s also assume that Syria under Assad is the chief aggressor and that every victim was either innocent or, if guilty (of inciting mob violence, say), deserving of a far better fate than what their fate ended up being. Should not someone do something to stop the Syrian dictatorship? Should not someone intervene and make it all better?
Brace yourselves. My answer may absolutely astound you. If you think of non-interventionist libertarians (now I’m the one being redundant) the same way most people (including a large portion of non-interventionists and libertarians themselves, I’d wager) do, what is about to follow may leave you even more confused than you were before. That is, until I elaborate.
So, what exactly is my answer? Without any further self-amused prevarication:
Yes: Intervene! Stop the regime! Liberate the oppressed people of Syria!
Now for the elaboration. Before I drive you, my otherwise forbearing reader, stark raving-mad.
In a perfect (but then, how could there be murderous tyrants?) world, this answer, a firm, resolute, indefatigable “Yes: Intervene!”, would need no elaboration whatsoever. One would think that common sense would dictate (not in the same way that Assad does, though) that if someone is harming someone else, and others care about alleviating or ending that suffering, they would attempt to stay the perpetrator’s hand, using violence if necessary. This is “palm, forehead” obvious, right? So why do libertarians, some of the most justice-loving and oppression-hating folks out there, oppose intervention so vehemently, and seemingly without reservation?!
Hold on there! Perfect world or no, they actually don’t oppose it! This is a misconception or a lie, depending on who spouts it. They (non-interventionist libertarians) simply wish that the people doing it wouldn’t force others to do it with/for them! Because the non-interventionists realize that by so doing the interventionists are actually performing a microcosm of the very thing the regime or person they are attempting to stop is doing (using aggression to achieve ends, thereby trampling precious liberty).
The types of rhetorical questions interventionists ask in order to justify their own aggression and support for aggression should be asked of them as well! In the interest of applying their own standards to themselves, let us formulate a few such questions right now! Why should those who, 1) can’t afford to; 2) don’t know how to; 3) don’t particularly care to; and/or 4) for whatever other reason are not able or willing to, topple a brutal regime (necessitating the loss of both blood and treasure), be made to fight for someone else’s rights (at the same time diminishing their own), especially when so many interventionists could simply do it all themselves were they simply to put their money where their mouths are?! Is it because they are hypocrites? Is it because they are inconsistent or illogical? Is it because they are impatient and over-eager? Is it because they are blinded by hatred or ignorance or irrationality or fear? Is it because their motives are not what they claim them to be?
As a libertarian, I absolutely support the rights of individuals and voluntary groups of individuals to take out whichever persons (and destroy their property) they like, provided they are justified in so doing. These persons that could be justifiably captured or killed includes not only Assad and his entire regime, but probably most of the so-called freedom fighters as well.
Even if I think it is the stupidest thing imaginable (which I generally do) for them to involve themselves in something that has literally no effect on them (other than their conscience, or more likely, their ego), and that will likely have harmful consequences, I still view their right to defend others’ rights without violating still others’ rights as not only inalienable, but righteous even (but again, probably not very wise).
To reiterate: Sure, let’s go ahead and intervene. The people who value that intervention can be the ones who pay for it and/or fight and/or take all the credit for the eventual (likely not satisfactory) outcome. Just because this desire of mine is a pipe dream does not mean it is not right. Under the violence and distortions of statism, the right thing is very often impossible or impractical, and hard at times to accept even by the very opponents of statism. But that is not the point at all! If it was then we are in trouble. There’s no telling what other good things we would have to disregard because they inconvenience us.
All I’m arguing for is, if the United States or any of its citizens do get involved, that they model it after the volunteerism that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. This, I believe, has been illegal and/or unnecessarily cost-prohibitive for a very long time. It will continue to be this way for as long as the Military-Industrial Complex remains entrenched in local communities, regional economies, and the national consciousness. This will be the case for a very long time to come, so far as I can tell, because this entrenchment is necessary to prop up GDP, keep the Dollar from collapsing, appeasing the moocher class, and buying votes. How any of these things will ever meet their end I can not even begin to imagine, but as a long-run optimist, I don’t doubt that the events will someday occur.
All of this ties in quite nicely with my promised (and forthcoming) posts on the evils of the standing army, one of the chief evils being that it is usually funded by people who don’t support its goals. This would not be the case for Spanish Civil War style volunteers, or private defense firms, or even necessarily the militia.
Notes On Liberty 
[…] [Originally posted at Notes on Liberty] […]
For me the answer is that unless there is a direct connection between Syria and their use of force against America or its population, then the right course is to let the fools kill themselves by whatever means they choose. Dead is dead. Innocents die in revolutions; it is unavoidable.
if the Syrian people are left to fight their own revolt for liberation, they might actually learn to value the peace that comes with freedom and individual rights as they shed the collective. It should be obvious that trading one collective for another collective is not a solution, only a change in masters. Only when people have the right to live as they choose, to worship or not worship as they choose, to travel freely as they choose, to freely and openly associate with people they choose and have the right to earn a living and keep most of what they earn…only then will the country find both peace and freedom.
Until Syria launches a weapon at the United States or our troops, then, Syria’s problems belong to the Syrians.
If the Syrians, either alone or in concert with some other nation choose to attack America or her citizens/troops, then, the United States should enter into the conflict with the goal of no less than unconditional surrender and a capitulation by the enemy to surrender all arms and pay for the destruction suffered by all involved for their warlike behavior.
It’s at that point where the United States must choose the battlefield and the means that will bring about the greatest incentive for surrender in the least amount of time with the least amount of U.S. and allied casualties and go all out to meet that objective without regard for collateral damage. In other words, this war, if fought, should be fought with just as much aggression and disregard for the lives of the enemy and those who harbor them, who support them, who love them and who did nothing to prevent them from creating this chaos in the first place.
War is the means used to destroy what has been built and cherished by the enemy. It is not a clean, surgical, minimalist skill that equates to medicine and its tissue sparing arts that are brought to bear to minimize both the loss of life and the quality of life that follows.
War is four horsemen of the apocalypse, the bringer of pain, suffering, disease, hunger and death and to wage it any other way only ensures a battle that lasts for decades – just consider that the U.S. South Korea and North Korea are still at war and are only living through a long cease fire that could end at any moment for any reason without any additional politics or grand bargains.
How many decades has the world been living under the threat of terror at the hands of Islam. Either the Islamist learn to live up to their assertion that “Islam is the religion of peace” or every peace loving nation should gather together and erase this blight on civilization from the face of the earth. This is not a U.S. problem.
This is a world problem and so long as the rest of the world chooses to sit on their collective thumbs, then so should the United States until any aspect of American people or property fall victim to the unprovoked and immoral use of force that is directly linked to a specific nation(s). Should that happen, then we should take the pale horse out of the barn and let it run with death running behind.
As to the evil of the Military Industrial Complex – where would we be in terms of the development and deployment of smart weapons to save the political asses of stupid Commanders-in-Chief should they become “non-entrenched” from the fabric of our overall national defense strategy and capabilities? Do we craft missile shields from our homes, how about computer driven drones and battlefield communications and targeting technologies? Do we develop these in our garages in a vacuum of limited communication and an absence of proper funding?
It should be clear that this alliance between government needs and innovative companies capable of studying defense problems and innovative solutions is more than just a means of improving GDP, propping up the dollar, feeding the moochers and buying votes.
It is the job of the Congress to monitor the deals it makes with businesses. It is the job of the American voter to become and remained sufficiently informed to keep our “representative” honest and acting in the best interest of the nation as we demand that our governors and local government representative act in the best interest of each state.
The United States is governed by the people and its powers come from the people to be used for the people – not for those elected officials who view themselves as elite and above the law. If we don’t like war and the way our leaders act politically in addressing our enemies or in the way they conduct this country’s foreign policy, then, it isn’t up to some homemade private militia to wage war.
It is up to the people of the United States to decide if waging war is justified, if it is a necessary retaliation to an unjust, unprovoked and organized use of force. If so, it is incumbent upon the entire nation to fund such a war to the level where a loss is impossible and victory is more vicious, swift and unconditional than any enemy could imagine to signal the world that while we love and desire peace, we will not tolerate injustice and assaults on our persons, property or our way of life,period, unequivocally emphatic and resolutely demonstrable to all who observed how we wage war in response to savages and tyrants.
We pay taxes for many reasons. The defense of the nation and our people is the primary reason for paying those taxes, just as protection from thieves, fires and disasters of all sorts are the primary reason for paying local and state taxes. It’s called providing for the common defense [not offense],
We pay taxes to establish and maintain a system of justice that is intended, primarily, to protect the individual rights of all people and to punish those who would gain by taking away or denying the rights of the fellow citizens to earn, keep and dispose of property as they wish in their pursuit of individual happiness. To do less is to ensure a lack of domestic tranquility and a rise in anarchy and corruption.
All other laws drafted by our legislature, signed by our executive and judged by our Supreme Court are supposed to be judiciously promulgated, uniformly implemented as well as just and supportive of the concept of individual rights and freedom as possible. But, they are of a secondary concern in their creation, implementation and enforcement in comparison to the three primary duties of government.
To those who don’t wish to serve their country in uniform, so be it. The military is all volunteer and it is unlikely a draft will ever become law again. Simply admit your distaste for combat services in defense of your nation. Take responsibility to support its causes and guide its actions by vowing to becoming informed, participating in activism that grabs and holds the fearful attention of legislatures and give your best as you demand of them their very best.
It’s not that difficult…one simply has to love ones country, endorse its ideals and act with honor by not allowing any government to operate with impunity in any reckless, immoral or otherwise dishonorable way.
But, that’s just one old man’s opinion who happened to attend school when public schools required passing a course in civics and U.S. government in order to graduate High School 🙂
Sorry for the length, but I was bored, feeling frisky and chose to fill my time with some thoughtful comments while visiting this wonderfully thought provoking blog.
[…] Longtime reader –Rick provides some helpful clarity to the Syrian debacle in the Middle East. He writes: […]
[…] following article derived from my response to a particular question raised on another blog. Here is the question as it was presented and my response as offered [with some editing for […]