Political Just War Theory as an Alternative to Liberalism

Political Just War Theory as an Alternative to Liberalism

I hope to explain, what I believe are, my extremely simple thoughts on how to cut through the dense web of nonsense which prevents the problems of politics from being solved. I hope to show radical libertarians, in particular, but also to anyone else, how they can move on from endless moralizing debates. Here I will use hypotheticals, not to necessarily advocate for or oppose any political end, but to help the reader think more clearly about what he ought to believe in regard to politics. It would be interesting to discuss the viability of what I suggest here, but the main purpose is to present a thought experiment. There are many issues I will fail to address here, so please comment with any question or argument you have so that I can fully explain my thoughts.

Suppose I were to become president of the United States of America. The majority of senators and representatives are of my party and agree with my agenda and will do as I say. Several Supreme Court justices have retired and I will replace them with ones who will rule in favor of my agenda regardless of the law, and the senate is guaranteed to approve them, all such that I have dictatorial power for the moment. I am not endorsing one-person dictatorship, but rather I am simplifying the hypothetical by putting aside the complexities of the political process and making this about one person’s actions. When I say “I” here, it could refer to my hypothetical political movement as a whole.

The purpose of government and, therefore, my purpose as the one who governs, can generally be described as enacting justice and ensuring the common good for a particular people. My agenda for justice and the common good might be largely, but not totally, libertarian. I would end nearly all existing federal taxes, spending, bureaucracy, and regulations, but on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure that good policies are kept. I would move towards a hard money economy, whether that means ending money printing or making it easier to use precious metals or cryptocurrency. I would gradually and responsibly end all foreign military involvement.

I would additionally enact various policies for the good of my citizens. I would protect them from addictive drugs, pornography, contraception, abortion, and usury. I might enact a welfare program primarily designed to allow families to survive on a single income. I would reform the medical industry into one based on prevention rather than one which profits from disease. I would consider enacting some kind of protectionist policy, not just to protect American industry from international competition, but also to promote small local business.

I would secure the southern border. Even after the problems of crime and non-citizens taking advantage of public services have been solved, I would significantly restrict legal immigration and gradually work to make recent immigrants leave. This is for the simple reason that this nation is not their home. It is for the posterity of the native people, not that of foreigners who have their own homes. I would achieve this with as little force as possible. I would investigate all the reasons for this flood of migrants. Any organizations behind it will be shut down. I would conduct a truthful propaganda campaign which shows how difficult it is for migrants in the United States.

I would examine whether and which policies of the United States have destabilized and impoverished Latin America and end those. However, that would not be enough to undo the damage immediately. I would go beyond a strict non-interventionist policy and consider low-cost and low-effort ways to ensure that the people of Latin America are content to stay in their own homes and to encourage those in the United States to return voluntarily. There is no reason the region north of the Rio Grande should be the only livable part of the American landmass.

(Replace all of this with whatever political agenda is in question, if it includes policies which are unpopular, but arguably beneficial. These are some of this things argued over among those whom this was written in response to.)

I would also do whatever I can to hold on to this dictatorial power for as long as possible. This is for the simple reason that if I were to not believe I have a right to hold this power and that my agenda of enacting justice and ensuring the common good for the nation is the correct one, I would not have worked to acquire the power in the first place. If I believe my agenda for justice and the common good is correct, I necessarily believe that contrary agendas are not just different preferences, but are evil and I am justified in doing no more or less than what is needed to stop those intending to enact such agendas from achieving power. There would be significant room for democracy and compromise because I would not be certain of either the ends or means of my agenda, but there can be no compromise with enemies.

Perhaps I will have overwhelming popular support, especially after I conduct a messaging campaign exposing the faults of the previous regime and how it was no more free or fair than mine and, most importantly, failed to ensure the good of the nation. Perhaps only a few people will complain and not enough to threaten my party’s supermajority. If instead, I am not so popular and my dominance is not so secure, then it would be more complicated. Certainly, I would do whatever is needed to defeat true enemies hostile to the well-being of the nation. They will not be allowed to vote or hold office, at the very least. However, there could also be those with entirely legitimate disagreements over my policy. It might be very difficult to distinguish between them. The former could hide among the latter. Making seemingly reasonable compromises could mean giving the enemies an opening. However, people being harmed by my policies having no recourse will make them desperate and make them support my enemies no matter how evil they may be.

None of this will matter if I truly have absolute power including command of the military, but that is not guaranteed. Even then, I would need to ensure that I and everyone on my side have zero doubt that we are right and act without hesitation or conflict or else we will lose to enemies who are so disciplined. There cannot be any worry that I am a tyrant victimizing innocents. It is possible that none of this would matter, but it would be better, with all else equal, to have a way of dealing with these problems.

There needs to be a way of resolving conflict without compromising my agenda and a way of identifying enemies with certainty and creating an assurance, to those on my side, if not my opponents, that my governance is not abusive. I would consider a different, perhaps superior, way to make peace with those who have legitimate disagreements with my policies. I might look into creating ways by which anyone can freely choose to give up the benefits of my governance in order to become free of the costs and obligations it imposes.

This could go as far as entire regions of the United States seceding. If an entire region’s population has different interests from mine and entirely objects to my policy, then letting them have a separate society and government while I enact my agenda in my territory without interference may be preferable to trying to compromise with them. The less extreme option is simply real federalism. Much of my agenda can be enacted by the states and they can decide the specifics of how. Those which do not, will lose federal funding or other benefits which are arguably unconstitutional anyway. There also need to be options for when those discontent with my governance are not concentrated in particular regions. My policies could perhaps be designed so that their benefits can be denied to those who would opt-out. Of course, there are still all kinds of ways for any of this to go wrong. Enemies can also take advantage of this. I would not encourage anyone to stop supporting me in these ways. They would just be some options for resolving conflict.

A common objection to expanding government power (or even using it in any way at all) or violating political norms is that doing so sets a precedent for one’s enemies to do the same against him. On one hand, evil people do not need a precedent to do this, so this thinking only restrains good people who care about fairness and norms. On the other hand, a precedent does give evil people another way to justify their actions and therefore makes things easier for them with all else equal. Perhaps, while I enact my agenda and attempt to hold onto power as long as possible, I will have set precedents for my enemies to do the same if I lose power, so that is a reason why it would be better to also set a precedent of allowing people to secede or otherwise opt-out. This way, if I lose power, then my people and I would not be hypocrites if we then attempt to secede. If our enemies try to stop us, then it would be more apparent that they are the tyrants and aggressors in this conflict, not my side. Thinking this way, “Setting a precedent for enemies” should simply be thought of as escalating conflict. It should be possible to similarly create a path for de-escalation which potential enemies can accept or not, as well as to respond to aggression proportionally.

As with the specifics of what policies would achieve the ends I described earlier, I am putting aside the issue of how exactly this would work. Smarter people than I can and, in some ways, have figured all that out. My question is, if everything I have described here were to happen and the practical issues were resolved, how could anyone possibly object to it? This government would be voluntary. No one is absolutely forced to contribute to it. There should be no expectation that it be perfectly neutral or fair, even as I try to make my policies tolerable to as many citizens as possible so as not to lose support and revenue. My agenda could be thought of as the personal preferences of my supporters and I rather than absolute justice and goodness. Likewise, I would not necessarily be failing to fulfill my role as a ruler by not imposing my idea of goodness on those who might resist any more than I would by not interfering in foreign countries. If someone is sufficiently civilized, mentally competent, and non-hostile to have a say over matters of government by voting and holding office, then surely there is no reason he should not also be able to decide whether or not to contribute to and benefit from a government, ignoring practical issues. Even in the case of people who are truly uncivilized or hostile, attempting to dominate them does not guarantee that I will win and letting them have separate territory while mine is secure preferable to losing power totally.

Of course, it is certainly possible that people find an arrangement to be oppressive even if it is voluntary. It is often not so easy for one to quit his job or stop buying the goods and services he depends on, and so he suffers the demands of his employer or the seller of those goods and services. People would not want to need to opt-out in order to escape my policies if they find them intolerable, but it is absolutely undeniable that it is better to have the option than not, since there is never a guarantee that any political system would produce the outcomes any particular person wants.

I might even say that one is incapable of the self-sufficiency and strength of will needed to be free in any circumstance if he would not prefer that those in power let him secede or otherwise opt-out even if he hates their preferences and would instead accept nothing other than masters they totally agree with. If such a dependent person believes a major political faction with a chance of winning represents their interests, then maybe his opinions are not his own, but were fed to them. Of course, this does not mean that it is simply justified to dominate dependent people. I am certainly not claiming to not be such a person. Ideally, all people would be guided towards self-sufficiency.

As far as I know, the only objection a Rothbardian/Hoppean libertarian would have to all this, which I would say is turning an entire nation into a covenant community, is simply that a government does not legitimately own any of the property which I would use to enact my policies and I would have no right to exclude anyone from it. I would simply say that, since no one proposes that the entire history of conquest be rectified, it simply needs to be accepted that nearly all property is at least partially stolen and the original owners or their heirs cannot be compensated. If I put an end to any further theft (involuntary taxation) and coercion, then surely I have no less right to the property of the government than anyone else, especially considering the actual people responsible for the previous theft and coercion would have been replaced by me and my faction. Only individuals can have guilt. Perhaps if someone were to claim to be the owner of a particular piece of property or say he is owed a certain amount of reparations, I would be open to negotiating. At the very least, there would only be a limited dispute; my activity would not be totally criminal. I might even say that is not true of governments generally. Particularly in a relatively stable republic, there is an extent to which all people consent to the government and to the extent they do not, almost no one is totally innocent. I would be putting an end to conflict and letting people decide if they really consent and give them a chance to become innocent. At the very least, a libertarian would have to agree that I am treating politics as a matter of conflict and aggression, and that I would be trying to make peace and achieve mutually beneficial solutions in a way similar to the market.

Now, suppose I do not make my government into a voluntary association, either not totally or not at all, whether for practical reasons or because I do not actually have the power to make that decision or any other reason. Would it then be better for me not to use whatever power I have to achieve the ends I believe are good or to do anything less than what is needed to stop those whose ends are bad? What I believe is good can include a significant amount of neutrality, fairness, and compromise, but those are impossible to achieve perfectly and are only to make it possible for different people to live in peace and that cannot be the entirety of what is good. There are certainly ineffective, costly, and abusive means of attempting to achieve the ends I described, but that only means I need to find the correct means, not that I should not use my power to achieve those ends.

In any case, my government would not be more oppressive or less fair or less egalitarian than what exists now. There would only be different people in power with different priorities which I believe are better. Even so, perhaps a coercive government should be limited to only a few purposes such as defense and the enforcement of basic law in order to minimize the amount of coercion. I can still have priorities in which policies I decide to repeal so as to achieve ends beyond those limited purposes. For example, while the war on drugs has been disastrous in many ways and I would want to quickly address the worst of it, I would not want it to be immediately announced that drugs are permitted. Additionally, even if the proper limited ends of government were clearly defined, the means are not. Many things contribute to security and the rule of law besides the deployment of armed men. There may be unintuitive ways of making the enforcement of law less expensive. For example, if crime and other dysfunction is correlated with fatherlessness, then a policy which encourages strong marriages is as much a valid way of ensuring the safety and security of a society as deterring crime through force.

Even if my government is not like a business in that people voluntarily buy its services, the sense in which it ought to be limited might not be so different from how a private business ought to be limited. The number of bad and counterproductive policies is infinitely greater than the number of good ones, yet it would be absurd to say those good ones should not be implemented in either case. I would also say that anyone who intends to gain power and expand the government beyond these purposes needs to be treated as an enemy and must not be allowed to gain power.

In reality, no one in the mainstream is proposing ways of truly ending political conflict by making it possible for different people to pursue their different ends without conflict. Some call for real federalism or secession, but not ways of having truly voluntary government in general. As such, this is a zero-sum game and no one can be blamed for not wanting to lose. There is not one side singularly to blame for increasing political hostility. Replacing one set of rulers with another, no matter how much better they are, necessarily means imposing on people who do not consent to those rulers, so it simply needs to be accepted that this will happen unless there is a way to secede or otherwise opt-out.

Of course, I am not dictator. I do not necessarily support any political movement which purports to achieve any of the ends I listed near the beginning simply because I do not trust anyone currently in power to do so and I have no way of holding them to account if something goes wrong. While I can concede for the sake of argument that it is possible for people with power at a federal or even global level to do good, that is beyond the concern of the average person who should instead be focused on local and private matters. This would additionally be a way to resolve the problem discussed. By doing this, one would not be coming into conflict against those with different interests nearly as much and to the extent he does, he should feel more justified in fighting for his own interests.

However, I might still regard certain political actors to be less hostile to me and those I care about and I will support them in the ways I can, which is not much. If I could speak to them without restraint, I would tell them what I think they should do differently, which would include attempting to resolve political conflict in the ways I have discussed. If I have no influence over them, however, then I can hardly be blamed for their faults and I would say the same for people I disagree with. People who have no power need to realize their political opinions regarding what they vaguely “support“ or “oppose” are simply what outcomes they believe are less bad. If one discusses what he would hypothetically do if he were to have power, as I have done here, then he does not need to be limited to the few options presented by the mainstream.

The point of all of this is that all of the problems with power become much simpler, if not solvable, by viewing politics as a matter of conflict not different from any other among individuals and groups. Only by recognizing conflict can peace be made and mutually beneficial solutions be found. The value of liberty and fairness can be pragmatic rather than inherent if one simply expects everyone to act in his own interest and also recognize that no one is guaranteed to win. The non-aggression principle can simply be a matter of understanding that, when threatened, people defend themselves, find allies, and retaliate when they can, and, therefore, it is always better to not make enemies by initiating conflict, with all else equal. It can be about dealing with conflict in a particular time rather than progressing towards some utopia.

Certainly those with such power as to be the regime can profitably exploit others, but dissidents cannot afford to antagonize anyone they do not need to. Additionally, the fact that dissidents exist and believe they have some chance of success means that a regime’s abuses can create enemies and undermine its power. With this perspective, the problem with pursuing a nonlibertarian agenda is not that doing so necessarily initiates conflict, but that it does not resolve conflict and may escalate it.

The answer to the question “Who will watch the watchmen” is no one and anyone. There is no perfect system of checks and balances. Ultimately, the only way for justice to be done is for people in power to choose to do the right thing. If they do not, then someone acting outside of the system of checks and balances needs to win and stop them. This is not to say there is no value in attempting to create a fair system, just that it is not guaranteed to work in every case.

By viewing politics as war by other means, it then seems to me that it is a simple matter to apply the principles of just war. Force should be used as a last resort when there is a just cause and a probability of success. The response must be proportional and should distinguish between true enemies and those who are willing to accept peace.

Ultimately, the only solution to conflict is overcoming scarcity, or rather this makes peace possible. If there were only one house in the world and everyone wanted to live in it, then it hardly matters how much of a right the owner has to exclude others. Those who are excluded will hardly feel different than if a house were stolen from them. No matter what, only a few people can live in the house and the more who do, the less space there is for each of them. The only solution is for there to be more houses.

Achieving the ends of liberalism requires doing the work needed to achieve mutually beneficial solutions and overcome scarcity. Otherwise, liberalism, including libertarianism, only redistributes power and resources from some people to others. I would be skeptical of any proposal for an objectively just way of doing this and even more so of any actual attempt at doing so.