Mises on War & Peace
Here on the 87th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson's declaration of war that ushered the United States into World War I, I think it is appropriate to resurrect some superb commentary from the great Ludwig von Mises in his book, Omnipotent Government:
The fateful error that frustrated all the endeavors to safeguard peace was precisely that people did not grasp the fact that only within a world of pure, perfect, and unhampered capitalism are there no incentives for aggression and conquest. President Wilson was guided by the idea that only autocratic governments are war-like, while democracies cannot derive any profit from conquest and therefore cling to peace. What President Wilson and the other founders of the League of Nations did not see was that this is valid only within a system of private ownership of the means of production, free enterprise, and unhampered market economy. Where there is no economic freedom, things are entirely different. In our world of etatism, in which every nation is eager to insulate itself and to strive toward autarky, it is quite wrong to assert that no man can derive any gain from conquest.
I cite these points because I've grown tired of the endless neocon-Wilsonian mantras about making the world safe for democracy, which, for these neocons, entails imposing U.S. will upon whole regions of the world. Imposing procedural democratic rules in the absence of economic freedom, at home or abroad, and in the absence of any cultural appreciation of the role of freedom in human life, will make the world safe for no one.
Comments (10)
In reading all the Comtean arguments on the pacific nature of "democracies," I've always been struck by the irony: the very neocons who make these arguments are the same ones most prone to advocating total war to "democratize" the world.
Of course, the term "democracy" is itself ambiguous. What the neocons call "democracy" usually means a centralized spectator democracy, heavy on "rule of law." And "rule of law" means, in practice, the rule of men in suits, the professionalization of policy, and lots and lots of Weberian bureaucratic rationality. The people are reduced to selecting between candidates from two factions of the corporatist ruling class, and then sitting down and shutting up until the next election.
I don't doubt that a REAL democracy--the kind of direct, decentralized, participatory system envisioned by Karl Hess or Ivan Illich--would be relatively pacific. But that's definitely not true in the case of a 21st century reincarnation of Victor Davis Hanson's beloved Athenian Empire.
Published: April 2, 2004 7:06 PM
Kevin,
Thanks for the very good comments. I too am always amazed by the idea that such "rule of law" can be imposed by violent edict from an outside authority. And the simple fact is that, as Mises suggests, it is not exactly a free market society that is being imposed. It is simply the transplanting of the same corporatist structures that rule the day in contemporary America.
Published: April 2, 2004 9:18 PM
The neocon vision is also flawed because it's goal is not to protect the individual rights of the conqueror, in this case America, but to instill a sense of "national pride" through common self-sacrifice. The administration looks at the Iraq war as a modern-day public works project.
I'm also tired of the argument that the war exempts the administration from any criticism of domestic policies, an adage that has quickly emerged as the Republican campaign theme. If anything, this administration's domestic policies are a perfectly integrated complement to its war policies. "Compassionate conservatism" describes an epistemology based on emotional whim--is this action "compassionate"--rather than reason. It's the conservative spin on "if it feels good, do it."
Published: April 3, 2004 9:03 AM
I am still bothered by those who think that democracy in-and-of-itself is of any real worth.
So many people never seem to realize that democracy is far from a guarantee of freedom. Seems such a simple observation yet it remains elusive. I only wish our population would wake up and realize that they are voting themselves right into a police state.
Justin
Published: April 3, 2004 10:47 PM
Excellent points, Skip. One of the things I've argued now, for quite a long time, is that there is an "organic" link between domestic and foreign intervention, and this administration has demonstrated that link in ways that are textbook in their quality. Most Austrian-school theorists have viewed these connections as unavoidable. So did the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, as I argue in these two essays:
http://tinylink.com/?cpL4ZravPd
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/59/Loyalty.html
Published: April 4, 2004 9:36 AM
Quote:
"The neocon vision is also flawed because it's goal is not to protect the individual rights of the conqueror, in this case America, but to instill a sense of "national pride" through common self-sacrifice. The administration looks at the Iraq war as a modern-day public works project."
"Compassionate conservatism" describes an epistemology based on emotional whim--is this action "compassionate"--rather than reason. It's the conservative spin on "if it feels good, do it."
Skip, in my humble opinion, you have given an excellent summary of the neocon and conservative position in just a few paragraphs. Your summary is in many ways superior to that of many columnists that I have that have wrestled with the definition and motives of today's neocons and conservatives.
I believe that the libertarian position on war is the superior one, as it regards right and wrong to be absolutes and applicable to everyone.
The conservatives are correct to worry about people who want to commit genocide on us - Bin Laden and his followers, who are all too happy to blow themselves up in a sick and demented unholy war.
But what frustrates libertarians and anarchists alike is their seeming inability to see both dangers; the danger of fantatical terrorists and backward cultures, and the danger of the U.S. state, which has caused more economic and cultural destruction than any terrorist.
We cannot, presently, go to war with terrorists without using the U.S. government. This puts us in a difficult situation. If our defense was privitized, we would not have to worry about a loss of liberty, at least, not to the extent that we do presently. But we do not. This puts both libertarians, who are quintessentially against mindless barbarism (in both terrorists and the State) and conservatives, who oddly preach limited government, but seemingly do not see the ties between war and the State, in a difficult position.
Published: April 4, 2004 12:56 PM
And of course if 'democracy' is such a fine ideal to impose on the Arab regions, we'd expect neocons to be rejoicing in the recent Spanish election results....
they're not? now there's a surprise...!
Published: April 4, 2004 12:57 PM
Even though I support the idea of military action in Iraq, it must be part of a wider, principled campaign against terroristic states--which clearly it isn't. And the notion of establishing democracy is deluded. What is needed is a system of individual rights, not majority rule, and that cannot be achieved without a philosophic revolution--beginning here in North America, where all the ideas behind freedom are dead.
President Bush's plan for establishing freedom remind me of the following recipe for beans and franks from a kindergarten-age child:
BEANS AND FRANKS
You need 6 franks and 7 beans. Put them in a pan and cook them. Cook them for two hours. Put them on a dish and eat them. This is for 6 people.
Published: April 4, 2004 2:53 PM
Watch for falling strawmen...they are falling all over. Better read this post quick, before Lew deletes!
Published: April 5, 2004 7:56 AM
There is, I think, a common misconception about democracy -- the supposition that democratic ruling satisfies the majority. Suppose that entities 1 through 6 votes for or against dilemmas A, B, and C. Now suppose that A is voted for by entities 3 to 6 and against by entities 1 and 2. B is voted for by entities 1, 2, 5, and 6 but against by 3 and 4. C is voted for by entities 1 to 4 but not by 7 and 8. It is clear that all 3 dilemmas are justified by majority consent, but none of the entities are actually satisfied. Entities 1 and 2 are against dilemma A despite the fact that it's already been ratified, entities 3 and 4 are against dilemma B, and entities entities 5 and 6 are discontented at the ratification of dilemma C. Therefore, despite the fact that majority consent does exist, they only exist for each dilemma individually, and not for a set of dilemmas -- i.e. there exists a minority for every part of the population wherever there is democracy, because most are part of some minority for or against a certain dilemma. Therefore the majority are usually not satisfied.
Published: June 15, 2004 11:31 AM