The ends *always* justify the means
So says "libertarian" attorney Timothy Sandefur:
I’ll be honest: it’s profoundly frustrating for me, as a supporter of both the decision to invade Iraq and the decision to remain there, to find myself having to defend the reputation of a man who is undeniably engaged in egregious violations of the Constitution. The notion that a President can take prisoners on the battlefield, send them to a prison camp off shore, and then hold them there, apparently indefinitely, without a genuine trial, is beyond shameful. It is a brazen violation of both the Constitution and the ancient common law tradition which I hold dear. It is profoundly to be hoped that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on this matter will help to set things straight.Except for the fact all of these "victories" led to permanent expansion of the state and even more violent attacks against individual rights--albeit perpetuated by the state as opposed to "secessionists" or "terrorists". Nor is it simply a matter of libertarian frustration. Just ask the many millions of people whose lives have been destroyed by various government agencies, to say nothing of the actual wars themselves. They never experienced the "immense joy" that Sandefur is longing to feel at the expense of others.Still, it is important to keep things a bit more in perspective. Franklin Roosevelt’s detention of the Japanese, and his use of military tribunals, was no less unconstitutional and illegal, and Roosevelt did a lot more else, besides. (At least Bush isn’t drafting people.) Yet it is still a cause for immense joy that we won that war. Abraham Lincoln censored opposition press and adopted other violations of important constitutional rights, yet it is also cause for rejoicing that he led the United States to victory in that war. War is all hell. It is a most efficient destroyer of individual liberties. That’s why libertarians hate it. But it would be a mistake to allow our frustration over such things to obscure our need and our desire for victory.
The violence we see at the domestic level, particularly in the form of bureaucratic regulators and sociopathic criminal prosecutors, is a direct consequence of the total warfare policy that Sandefur supports, his protestations of libertarian guilt nothwithstanding. You simply can't advocate total warfare abroad without endorsing it at home. That is why his position on the Civil War is particularly noxious. It's not a matter of defending constitutional federalism or Southern culture. It's a matter of opposing a monopoly government's "right" to seek the outright destruction of a society simply because it won't submit to your authority.
But hey, at least Bush isn't drafting people. But if he did, Sandefur would still support the war in Iraq. After all, Lincoln and FDR both drafted people. So if Bush claimed a similar "right" to murder his own citizens without qualification, Sandefur would still stand and cheer because he's certain that at the end of the day there will be "immense joy" among those who survive the brutality.
Comments (20)
Mr. Sandefur (whom some not so nice people would call an unprincipled snot nosed young attorney) has it bass ackwards. The means justify the ends.
Published: June 27, 2006 1:04 PM
This is bizarre -- Frankly I don't like either side. It's not like the rest of the world are peace-loving libertarian flower growers and it's just the U.S. that is bad bad bad trampling the perfect garden, nor is it true that GW and co. are conservatives in any sense, have done almost nothing else but expand leviathan. As far as capture and imprisonment - unsure what the author is referring to. Foreigners do not enjoy the protections of the Constitution, nor do those in active duty in the military.
And yes, it is a cause of immense joy that we prevailed in WWII irrespective of our stupid and senseless prior policies that may have made WWII more likely and worse and irrespective of the horrible policies of FDR. It is a testament to our good citizens that are willing to pay the price regardless of the f-ups we elect. And of course, there were even more stupid and senseless policies on the other sides, no?
Published: June 27, 2006 3:43 PM
"Foreigners do not enjoy the protections of the Constitution."
Fallacy #1: the rights of human beings depend on what a scrap of paper says.
Fallacy #2: that scrap of paper, as far as it recognizes human rights, only applies to US citizens.
Jim managed to err twice in just one sentence.
"And yes, it is a cause of immense joy that we prevailed in WWII…"
For whom, I wonder. For Americans, the only plausible difference is that they toil under a more oppressive government than they would have had they stayed out.
"It is a testament to our good citizens that are willing to pay the price"
Willing to accept and even rejoice over one's loss of liberty is a moral travesty, a lover of liberty would say. Quite frankly, it's an awful testament to your country's "good citizens".
Published: June 28, 2006 7:15 AM
Qoute from Paul D: "Fallacy #1: the rights of human beings depend on what a scrap of paper says."
On what do the rights of human beings depend? Where do these rights of human beings come from?
Published: June 28, 2006 7:32 AM
It is precisely because of the presence of people like this Sandefur fellow in the "libertarian" movement that I do not use the term "libertarian" to describe myself.
Published: June 28, 2006 9:54 AM
It is always important, when speaking of our victory in WWII, to focus on what we ACTUALLY accomplished - we made Eastern Europe safe for Soviet hegemony, and made Asia safe for Mao's experiment in communism.
And lest one think that this was just an unfortunate side effect, or evidence of some sort of lack of will to continue, there are more than a few FDR quotes (if his actions weren't enough) that demonstrate that he admired that "noble experiment" (the Soviet Union).
The Nazis and Japanese imperialists were evil, no doubt. But they were a product of, and an important counterbalance in, local geopolitics, poised against others who were equally, if not more, evil (Stalin and Mao, by most accounts, are the most prolific mass murderers in history). By choosing sides in these battles of evil vs. evil, we did not clearly do good...
Published: June 28, 2006 10:37 AM
quasibill,
Well said.
Published: June 28, 2006 11:33 AM
B.S. Quasibill - What if libertarian views are turned to evil? Can we then write a paper about "proper punishment" for libertarians? Come off it ... The attempt to transmute good to evil can only spread evil.
Paul - You're so far out in lala land it's unbelievable. This is a tradeoff of two bad outcomes, so we choose the least bad. There is no "perfect option". So whose rights hold superior in this tradeoff?
Jailing possible foreign combatants to spare your brother's life isn't prima fascie evil if there's no other way. Your criticism unprincipled and despicable if it leads to the death of your brother - certainly a worse state of affairs.
Others, perhaps even you, imply it would be better if Hitler carried out the final solution and consolidated power in Europe as we twiddle by and fiddle with our "sorry, we're committed to rights of all German soldiers so you Jews and non-Aryans will have to die". What?
What about the rights of the Jews in concentration camps? What about the Imperial Japanese and their horrendous actions toward other Asian people? Frankly, the U.S. did tremendous good and and evil in the war. But we are not solely responsible for the problems, nor are we wholly responsible for the governments that rose up. You can say we should have done many things different, but there's no question about better / worse.
Just another day in the fantasy libertarian universe where the U.S. is the bad guy no matter how bad the alternatives ...
Published: June 28, 2006 2:33 PM
"The notion that a President can take prisoners on the battlefield, send them to a prison camp off shore, and then hold them there, apparently indefinitely, without a genuine trial, is beyond shameful."
In which wars have prisoners of war had access to the legal system of the country holding them prisoner? POW's aren't criminals; they're combatants. The Geneva Convention (GC) is the law that covers the rights of POW's, not criminal law. But per the GC, POW's must earn the right to protection under the GC. They must not use civilians as shields; they must not target civilians; they must wear uniforms. Those combatants who violate those principles don't get GC privileges or protection. The POW's at Gitmo have received most of the protections of the GC, although they violated every jot and tittle of the document. They have no right to access to our criminal justice system. As in every war fought in the past century, they should be held until the war is over.
Published: June 28, 2006 3:09 PM
"Others, perhaps even you, imply it would be better if Hitler carried out the final solution and consolidated power in Europe as we twiddle by and fiddle with our "sorry, we're committed to rights of all German soldiers so you Jews and non-Aryans will have to die". What?"
Well, compared to what Stalin did after we made Europe safe for HIM to consolidate his power, I'm not sure we chose the lesser of two evils. Besides, you're assuming something that isn't true - that if we had stayed out, Hitler could've consolidated power in Europe. Hitler was never going to conquer the Soviet Union. And without our help, the Soviets couldn't have mustered a major counterattack. These two evil empires would have drained each other dry, until their people said "enough" and overthrew the evil from within.
"What about the rights of the Jews in concentration camps?"
What about them? They were violated, no doubt, by the Nazi state, much like the rights of millions of peasants in the Soviet Union at the same time. Again, you do realize that most historians believe that Stalin killed more of his own citizens than any other person in history (there is some contention that Mao may have eclipsed him). So your argument that we picked the "least bad side" is very hard to support. I'm not even sure if there is any meaningful distinction between the sides. They were both pure evil, in my mind. A pox on both, and don't force me to make the world safe for either one to continue its evil.
You have every right to do what you believe is right - you just don't have the right to force me, or anyone else, to pay for your morality.
Roger,
"The POW's at Gitmo have received most of the protections of the GC, although they violated every jot and tittle of the document."
And you know these two facts how? Through first hand knowledge? Or through the allegations of interested parties?
Heck, the Soviets and Nazis only claimed to have killed those that were a danger to their states in war-time. I guess those people deserved it, too.
Published: June 29, 2006 9:13 AM
Quasibill -- We should be praised for the good we do. So where's the praise?
Your comment can't even pull off "nice job America" for rolling back fascism, Imperialism, etc. -- and now we're responsible for Stalin who arose on the back of Lenin? Come on. It's just a tad more complex -- Yes, FDR did yield Poland to Stalin (they were our Ally after all) which was likely a horrendous mistake if it could have been avoided, but you act as if we put Stalin in power. There are more factors at work than the stupid unidirectional "U.S. bad" mantra.
And nonsense comparing us to Soviet Russia. You see, you have to alter reality to support your so-called "commitment to principles" ... but that's just fact avoidance.
Would I like to see all people honor equal non-aggressive voluntary social interaction? Of course. But that is not always proper grounds for criticism of the U.S. policy -- other cultures and governments do not share the view that people should be equal and not aggressed against. There are forced choices between bad and less bad because there are limits to what can be accomplished even if we made no mistakes or were (as much as possible) moral.
As far as Gitmo, there's a dearth of information. You cannot claim it supports either side, although I find it interesting that not only has information gotten out, we've been held to a pretty tight standard in comparison to Islamofascists.
Published: June 29, 2006 11:22 AM
Quote from quasibill: "You have every right to do what you believe is right - you just don't have the right to force me, or anyone else, to pay for your morality."
Are there any situations where the "collective" has an obligation to protect the rights of individuals who are outside the "collective"? Does your morality allow for that? The world is full of monsters and rats. Is your morality limited to whatever monster or rat happens to be impacting your individual rights at the time?
Everybody has their own version of morality, including Nazis and communists, but that doesn't mean we have to accept their morality as correct. When do we make the judgment that our own morality extends to others? I thought that was what libertarianism was about. Life, liberty, property, individual rights, free trade, contracts, etc. Do we have any obligation to champion these morals for individuals outside of our own collective group? We aren't the policemen to the world, but when we have a situation that doesn't immediately or directly impact us, but can be stopped/corrected/changed, should we just walk away and say it isn't our problem? It may be a slippery slope, but shouldn't the risks and benefits at least be considered? Who knows when somebody elses monster or rat will come knocking at our door.
Published: June 29, 2006 12:55 PM
pro-war 'libertarians' aren't libertarians and need to call themselves left-leaning neoconservatives. I'm sure most of them would without too much of a fight. Libertarian does not apply to them
Published: June 30, 2006 4:01 PM
Keith,
“Are there any situations where the "collective" has an obligation to protect the rights of individuals who are outside the "collective"? Does your morality allow for that?�
Is this the same question as “Are there any situations where the oligarchy representing the "collective" has the right to coerce individuals of this collective to fund and risk their lives to protect the rights of individuals who are outside the "collective"?
If it is, the answer is no; never. That would be an aggressive infringement on the rights of those who came under the coercion to perform this protection.
“The world is full of monsters and rats. Is your morality limited to whatever monster or rat happens to be impacting your individual rights at the time?�
Only the individual is in a proper moral position to make a decision regarding the time and place to offer someone else assistance, charity or their life in the pursuit of helping them.
“Everybody has their own version of morality, including Nazis and communists, but that doesn't mean we have to accept their morality as correct. When do we make the judgment that our own morality extends to others? I thought that was what libertarianism was about. Life, liberty, property, individual rights, free trade, contracts, etc. Do we have any obligation to champion these morals for individuals outside of our own collective group?�
It is valid for a free individual or an association of free individuals to offer to the oppressed their assistance and relief from tyranny and provide it if they accept the help and understand the costs. It is tyrannical and a contradiction, to presume to force allegedly free people to do the same or to force others to accept this assistance without an invitation.
“We aren't the policemen to the world, but when we have a situation that doesn't immediately or directly impact us, but can be stopped/corrected/changed, should we just walk away and say it isn't our problem? It may be a slippery slope, but shouldn't the risks and benefits at least be considered? Who knows when somebody elses monster or rat will come knocking at our door.�
A free individual always has this moral dilemma: To risk one’s own blood and spend one's own treasure on behalf of another in need. The answer must come from a voluntary personal decision based perhaps on persuasion and argumentation but always with the freedom to say no. No other solution can be justified.
Published: July 1, 2006 12:41 AM
Roger,
“They have no right to access to our criminal justice system. As in every war fought in the past century, they should be held until the war is over.�
This one’s over the top. Roger, just how long do you think it will be until this “war� is over? Who will declare it over? Do you think it is really just to hold people who are quite probably innocent, or whose guilt cannot be proven, without charge, without a trial, without representation, without a connection to the outside, for an indefinite duration of time which could well last for the rest of our lives? What's that? Is that different from the Nazis or the Stalinists or Mao?
How long do you think you’d last in such a situation, even if the prospect of torture wasn’t a constant threat? This is the problem I have with the state: its arrogant disregard for private property and human rights and human dignity leads to the most inhumane results man can fathom. And almost as bad, its behavior is even seen as legitimate by people who should, and otherwise would know better.
Published: July 1, 2006 1:05 AM
"What about the rights of the Jews in concentration camps?"
What about the US's restrictive immigration laws of the 1930s that forced many of these Jews to stay in Europe?
"In which wars have prisoners of war had access to the legal system of the country holding them prisoner? POW's aren't criminals; they're combatants. The Geneva Convention (GC) is the law that covers the rights of POW's, not criminal law."
I don't know what war has allowed POWs to have access to the courts, but this should be another good reason to stay out of wars.
"Combatants"? How do you know this? Did Rummy tell you so? Emperor Bush tell you? These are prisons where media and media cameras aren't allowed, unless they belong to administration tools like the Fox War Channel or Bill O'Reilly. Many of these "combatants" had nothing to do with any of these conflicts on any side. The state controlled mainstream US media won't discuss any of this. If these "combatants" were given trials this could be made obvious with many of them. Maybe that's why they are held in the secrecy that exists. It's all about promoting this phoney image that they are getting the terra-ists.
Suppose someone kidnapped you and hauled you off to some foreign prison because your emperor was waging war?
Published: July 1, 2006 3:11 AM
Paul:"This one’s over the top. Roger, just how long do you think it will be until this “war� is over? Who will declare it over?"
I guess we'll declare it to be over when all of the terrorists are dead. When human being fight wars, one side admits defeat and the POW's are sent home. When animals such as Al Qaeda terrorists fight, they never surrender, but continue fighting dressed as civilians, sometimes as women, hiding behind children. Because we can't tell the combatants from the civilians, it's natural that a few mistakes would be made.
Mankind has never considered soldiers in combat to be criminals. That's why they're never put on trial unless they kill civilians intentionally, steal, or rape. The Gitmo combatants should not be tried in military tribunals and have no right to access to our criminal courts. I'm just stating what the law of warfare has been for centuries.
Gitmo detainees should be held until we're confident the threat from Al Qaeda is over. That may be decades.
John:"Combatants"? How do you know this? Did Rummy tell you so? Emperor Bush tell you?"
Who told you they're not combatants? The New York Times? The military has a process of weeding out the noncombatants and have already sent hundreds home. The ones left at Gitmo are the hardened ones who have admitted guilt and are proud of it.
Published: July 1, 2006 9:02 AM
"I guess we'll declare it to be over when all of the terrorists are dead."
But this really cannot ever come to pass. Only in the imaginations of our great leaders can this ever occur; and when will their imaginations latch on to such a delusion? Who knows? And in the meantime, the US military will have held illegally, without trial, likely many innocent people etc as i mentioned above, for that duration.
Tell me if you think a private group of vigilantes would ever presume to have the right to do such a thing, or that their fellow citizens would perceive that they had such a right. A civilized population would not. And rightly so. And for the very same reasons it is wrong for the individuals in Washington to act in this way: it is unjust and criminal.
"The ones left at Gitmo are the hardened ones who have admitted guilt and are proud of it."
Are you serious? None have had a trial. Admitted guilt? If it saves another night tied up and hanging upside down to your bunk, perhaps we might all admit what our interrogators want us to admit, regardless of truth.
Published: July 1, 2006 12:06 PM
Keith,
“On what do the rights of human beings depend? Where do these rights of human beings come from?�
It seems that up until Hoppe’s Argumentation ethics, the libertarian has had to rely on opinion that the non-aggression axiom is any more valid than another. “Self evident� etc, has the implication of being dependent on whose self is interpreting things and seeing just what is evident.
On the other hand, a very thorough investigation of Hoppe’s thesis, in my opinion shows that not only is the libertarian non-aggression ethic intuitively true to the libertarian, it is in fact the only ethic that is morally justifiable through acts of proposition making and argumentation.
Therefore, the answer to “Where do these rights of human beings come from�? is that they are proven valid through justification. And only the libertarian ethic can be justified.
Furthermore, it follows from this that it is just as Paul D. is suggesting: the justification of rights of human beings depends NOT on what a scrap of paper says, but only on what can be justified through argumentation.
From this, it is clearly implied that rights are not a matter of nationality, but of humanity. No American has the right to brutalize another human being because the constitution is deemed not to reach onto international soil or to the foreigner. Morality and ethics applies to human action. Not simply to Americans on American soil. How arrogant and ignorant such a proposition obviously is shown to be under this lens.
Published: July 1, 2006 12:31 PM
RogerM writes,
"The military has a process of weeding out the noncombatants and have already sent hundreds home. The ones left at Gitmo are the hardened ones who have admitted guilt and are proud of it."
Where did you get this information from??? As far as I know, the most recent and certainly the most comprehensive information regarding the composition of Gitmo inmates is contained in this report: http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf . Note that it completely contradicts your claims. Most inmates have nothing to do with terrorism. If you have something that trumps this, post away.
As a side note, many of the detainees appear to be completely innocent people who were sold into capture: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm .
You may also want to look up Janice Karpinski regarding her first-hand knowledge of what really goes on at Gitmo.
Finally, I highly recommend that you read "Jesus is an Anarchist" -- http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html . It makes a very thorough case that Jesus was, in fact, against ALL worldly governments. I gather you don't believe this from posts in other threads. Please read it before you continue to defend the tool of Satan (government). If you think you can refute this argument, please do so. I'm certainly not a biblical scholar, but I don't think that you can make a case to the contrary.
I'm late for work so I hope this is coherent. Gotta go.
Published: July 1, 2006 6:13 PM