Libertarians and the War

[José]

Libertarians and the War

Ron Paul doesn't speak for all of us.

BY RANDY E. BARNETT

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him--even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty--to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no."

——————————————

First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.

When it comes to foreign policy, libertarians' severe skepticism of government planning in the domestic arena carries over to the government's ability to accomplish anything positive through foreign aid, whether economic or military--a skepticism they share with most Americans. All libertarians, I suspect, oppose military conscription on principle, considering it involuntary servitude. To a libertarian, any effort at "nation building" seems to be just another form of central planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended consequences and the danger of blowback. And, like most everyone, libertarians oppose any war of aggression. In all these regards, Mr. Paul is a mainstream libertarian.

But like all libertarians, even Mr. Paul believes in the fundamental, individual right of self-defense, which is why libertarians like him overwhelmingly support the right to keep and bear arms. And most also believe that when the territory of the U.S. is attacked militarily, the government--which claims a monopoly on providing for national defense and extracts billions of tax dollars for this purpose--is justified in using the military in self-defense. For this reason, many libertarians (though not all) who now oppose the war in Iraq supported U.S. military actions against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had aided and harbored the al Qaeda network that organized the 9/11 attack.

But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.

Many libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam's regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive in nature.

Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was "legal" cause to take military action against Saddam's regime--from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the "no fly" zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.

——————————————

Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed. The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central "plan," but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach--and promptly replace its military commanders as President Lincoln did repeatedly--when it became clear that its tactics were not working. This prolonged delay gave the enemy time to better organize its resistance and, perhaps most important, demoralized those Americans who had initially supported the war but who needed to see continued progress toward victory to maintain their support.

Still, there are those pro-invasion libertarians who are now following the progress of Operations Phantom Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper. They hope that the early signs of progress in this offensive will continue, so that American and Iraqi forces can achieve the military victory necessary to allow the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people from terrorists, as well as from religious sectarian violence. They hope this success will enable American soldiers to leave Iraq even before they leave Europe and Korea, and regain the early momentum that led, for example, to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.

These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war--as Ron Paul does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.

Mr. Barnett is professor of law at Georgetown University and author of "The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law" (Oxford University Press, 1998).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT…ml?id=110010344

[Boz]

Comment est-il possible de passer des postulats du libertarisme à la défense d'une guerre étatique sans employer des sophismes holistes au passage ? Question ultra-classique, je sais…

[Ronnie Hayek]

R. Barnett: encore un ex-libertarien passé du côté obscur…

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11306

Bizarro 'Libertarianism'

Fake libertarian legal scholar crawls out of the woodwork to attack Ron Paul's antiwar stance

by Justin Raimondo

Noted libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett's pro-war manifesto – which aims to reconcile classical liberalism and neoconservative foreign policy adventurism, and attacks Ron Paul for opposing the Iraq war – will doubtless go down in the history of the freedom movement as the founding document of Bizarro libertarianism, a misshapen byproduct of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to my theory, the sheer force of the World Trade Center's collapse tore a hole in the space-time continuum, with the result that we slipped into an alternate universe – Bizarro World – where up is down, right is left, and mass murder is the apotheosis of pure liberty.

Barnett isn't the first and won't be the last such victim of 9/11 Derangement Syndrome, but he is certainly the most prominent libertarian to succumb. His distinguished scholarly career – or, perhaps, not that distinguished – is his entrée into the pages of the War Street Journal. Notwithstanding any of that, his ideological evolution from anarcho-capitalist [.pdf] and disciple of Lysander Spooner, as channeled by Murray Rothbard, to state-legitimating author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty – which argues against Spooner and makes the case for a "libertarian" statism in which the federal government may impose "liberty" on the states – is a journey that sounds awfully familiar to students of recent intellectual history. The neoconservatives, who started out on the Trotskyist Left and wound up recanting and spinning ever-more-elaborate and extreme arguments against their former views, long ago embarked on a similar odyssey.

Bizarro libertarianism, it turns out, is merely a subspecies of neoconservatism, albeit without the leftist history, and Barnett exhibits the telltale characteristics we have all come to know and hate. The neocons, whatever their particular stripe, are united in their methodology and their inimitable style, which relies heavily on a characteristically neoconnish condescension:

"While the number of Americans who self-identify as 'libertarian' remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres – what is sometimes called 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism.' But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists."

The Bizarro libertarians would, naturally, have an extreme aversion to Ron Paul: the Good Doctor is their kryptonite. Just like Bizarro Superman and the real Superman were deadly enemies, so the lapsed libertarians of Barnett's ilk are driven mad by the mere sight of Paul standing up to the thuggish Giuliani and insisting on a reality-based assessment of U.S. foreign policy. Rather than ask why or how Ron Paul got such a lot of mileage out of this encounter, Barnett resorts to the typical neocon ploy of writing his own alternate-universe narrative, in which Giuliani's widely mocked and effectively skewered grandstanding was a great victory for the War Party and its candidate: "It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president." Another Great Leader is born, and the former anarcho-capitalist is "electrified."

On the other hand, Barnett finds profoundly disturbing the sight of Dr. Paul upholding the traditional libertarian opposition to wars of aggression:

"One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him – even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty – to the war. This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is 'no.'"

If a war is costing us over a trillion dollars – so far – with no end in sight, then isn't it inextricably linked to the issue of taxes and spending? This isn't rocket science: you don't need scholarly credentials to understand the connection. Wars cost money. More wars mean higher and more onerous taxes and economic regulations, as Robert Higgs has definitively shown. As for the link between personal liberty and war – can someone who has set up a Web site devoted to Lysander Spooner fail to see it? The simple answer is "no."

But that's what Bizarro libertarianism is all about: inverting the original principles of the freedom philosophy and using the resulting ideological construct to destroy what little liberty we have left – as well as killing many thousands in the process.

Barnett acknowledges that "skepticism" of an interventionist foreign policy is rooted in libertarian first principles, yet, tellingly, he never alludes to any moral objections to war as mass murder by the state. Oh yes, there may be "blowback" if we invade Transluchistan and kill 100,000 Transluchis: the relatives of the victims will hate us forever. But will we hate ourselves? This question never seems to occur to the learned professor, although it did and does occur to the overwhelming majority of libertarians. Barnett, however, is too busy inventing his alternate universe of pro-war libertarians, who, contra Ron Paul, cheered on Bush's war because

"They viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation-building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack."

Barnett does not bother naming these alleged libertarians, unless Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz are now to be considered stalwarts of the movement, but there were a few. I say "were" because they have nearly all since recanted their positions. Barnett is one of the last "libertarian" pro-war dead-enders.

Barnett's delusions don't end there, however: his invocation of the neocons' favorite rhetorical ploy – the World War II analogy – is a definitive symptom of 9/11 Derangement Syndrome. To somehow imagine Osama bin Laden's scattered army of underground conspirators holed up in a cave somewhere is the equivalent of the Wehrmacht, which conquered a good deal of the Eurasian landmass and a large swathe of Africa, is a hallucination commonly suffered by many neocons. The sheer absurdity of it is breathtaking, but perhaps intellectuals of a certain sort are prone to this sort of extravagant error. Exaggeration, it seems, is an occupational hazard of the intellectual class, one that ideologues of all sorts are prone to. Barnett is a classic case.

The War Party finds such people very useful: look at Christopher Hitchens, who has made a career out of his warmongering. He's the War Party's resident "leftist," and now Barnett has taken on the job of providing some libertarian-sounding phrases to justify a war against an enemy that had never attacked the U.S. and posed no credible threat to our national security. Of course, our professor of legal theory has come up with a lawyer's justification for the war, as follows:

"Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was 'legal' cause to take military action against Saddam's regime – from its manifold violations of the cease-fire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the 'no fly' zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops."

Are "libertarians" really invoking the UN – that worldwide conclave of governments, most of which are barely "democratic" and none of which are "liberal" in Barnett's sense of the term – in order to rationalize this futile war? Tell me it ain't so! Not for nothing has Ron Paul sponsored legislation to get us out of the UN, which has been used as a front for wars of aggression ever since the Korean conflict. But I guess if you're a former anarcho-capitalist who has made a career out of legitimizing the state, glamorizing the UN is a piece of cake.

How on earth did we get from upholding property rights and positing a social theory based on non-coercive relationships to enforcing "no-fly zones" around the world? According to the principles of Bizarro libertarianism, the U.S. had a perfect right to decide what "conditions" would forestall an American invasion, and it also possessed the right to unilaterally decide if those conditions had been violated – a "libertarian" theory of international law that is remarkable for its complete lack of any basis in logic, law, or the principles of human liberty.

As for establishing "an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East" – what we succeeded in establishing is a state whose police are in collusion with those very jihadists: these days, gunfights between U.S. troops and Iraqi police are not uncommon. A government that resembles, in its ideological orientation and general mode of operation, the mullahcracy that prevails in Iran now rules parts of the country, while the rest is divided up between various tribal chieftains, the Kurds, and the Sunni insurgents, including a small minority of al-Qaeda-inspired militants. Where is this "ally" we were supposed to have acquired? It exists only in the imagination of Barnett, and perhaps his fellow dead-ender, Reason magazine's Ron Bailey.

What gets me, however, is the very last phrase of the above-cited quote:

"Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops."

Oh really? Were Barnett and his fellow liber-hawks so naïve as to think the occupation of Iraq would come to an end as soon as Bush declared "mission accomplished"? Surely this would be the first such government program that would not be unnaturally prolonged on account of political pressure from special interests. It's hard to believe that Barnett actually believed that the U.S. Army would march in there and then, after the country ran out of rose petals to strew in the path of its liberators, march right back out again. Surely even the most absent-minded professor would realize, after giving the matter even a moment's thought, that we would have to deal with the prospect of an insurgency against the occupation, based on the well-known antipathy for foreign invaders shown by all conquered peoples throughout history. In any event, what about the "war against the jihadists" that seems to preoccupy Barnett to the exclusion of all else? Would we just abandon it and go home?

If you have swallowed enough of the neocon Kool-Aid, however, it is possible to believe anything – even that there is a chance the war in Iraq will "succeed." Barnett does not disappoint us:

"Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed. The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central 'plan,' but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach – and promptly replace its military commanders as President Lincoln did repeatedly – when it became clear that its tactics were not working. This prolonged delay gave the enemy time to better organize its resistance and, perhaps most important, demoralized those Americans who had initially supported the war but who needed to see continued progress toward victory to maintain their support."

The "mistakes were made" line is particularly grotesque coming as it does from an alleged libertarian, who doesn't deign to mention the cost in human lives: all that matters is the disappointment of Barnett and his confreres – which, of course, is rooted not in the nature and inherent hubris of the neocons' Middle East project, but in the president's failure to fire military officers who saw the disaster coming. It isn't just the "tactics that are not working" – the entire strategy of invading a country in the heart of the Middle East that would become a model democracy and inspire "liberal" revolutions throughout the region was a cruel joke from the start. Unfortunately, the joke was and is on the Iraqi people, who are the victims in all this: apparently, by Barnett's lights, they haven't suffered quite enough. He and his fellow warmongers aren't quite finished with them yet. They are "rooting for success" and "military victory" because it would make us "safer" – and never mind that every expert has said we are merely doing bin Laden's recruiting for him. Never mind, too, those ominous reports of increased "chatter" about another terrorist strike in the U.S. Barnett can always blame Ron Paul for that, too.

Barnett's screed is a jumble of ignorance – the man clearly hasn't even the most elementary knowledge of the Middle East – and clumsy evasions. He never even acknowledges the outright lies that led us to become involved in this rotten war: in the Bizarro World inhabited by Barnett and his confederates, the history of deception and outright falsification of "intelligence" by this administration never happened. All that went wrong was that the implementation of the neocons' grandiose vision was botched by a president who wasn't enough like Lincoln – you know, the famously "libertarian" president who jailed his political opponents, banned antiwar newspapers, and burned Atlanta to the ground.

For an encore, will Barnett invoke the "libertarian" shade of FDR to justify an all-out invasion of the Middle East – starting, perhaps, with Iran? After all, the "liberation" of Iraq worked out so well, surely this time around Barnett and his "libertarian" friends will do all in their power to make sure the White House gets this one right.

It's perfectly understandable that the War Party would put up this "libertarian" shill for their indefensible and rapidly failing policies – and that his primary target is Ron Paul. The War Party is empowered as long as the people have to choose between war and economic and social freedom, on the one hand, and peace coupled with economic and social regimentation, on the other. Ron Paul transcends the Left-Right pardigm that has bedeviled American politics and kept our political system under the War Party's heel – and the neocons hate him for it.

The Paul campaign gives Americans the opportunity to choose between keeping their old republic or exchanging it for dreams of a worldwide empire. That scares the neocons – and with good reason.

The world war against "jihadism" and the military occupation of much of the Middle East would fatally undermine the classical liberal vision ostensibly upheld by Barnett. We can launch a world war, in which countries are invaded, occupied, and reconstructed from scratch, or we can have smaller government, low taxes, and a country where civil liberties are not privileges but inviolable rights. We cannot have both. Eventually, Barnett will be forced to choose – and, considering the arguments he makes in his War Street Journal piece, it looks like he has already chosen. The crux of his argument is that libertarians can disagree on how to conduct a war, once we've been attacked – but Barnett seems blissfully unaware that a "strategy" of invading the Middle East and seeking to subjugate it, in the name of "democracy" and "liberalism," is (like all interventionist measures, domestic and foreign) having the exact opposite of its intended result. Doesn't he read the newspapers? Doesn't he know that Iraq is melting down and threatening to drag the entire region down with it? Yet he cries for more – more!

Bizarro libertarianism has few followers and even fewer hopes of taking the movement by storm. What it does do, however, is act to counter the authentic article, as represented by Ron Paul. This shows the Paul campaign is having an impact – and that the War Party is running scared. That's why it's useful to keep Bizarro libertarians around, where they can harmlessly theorize upon how to privatize every garbage can in America and pontificate about how we only have to legalize drugs, permit cloning, and institutionalize gay marriage and we'll be living in a libertarian utopia. If and when a real, live libertarian arises – one who opposes the regime and threatens the foreign policy status quo – the War Party can always trot out these phonies, who will then set the record straight as to the "true" meaning of libertarianism.

It won't work. The genie is already out of the bottle. If Barnett and his fellow shills want to run up the banner of imperialist "libertarianism," then their much-vaunted disappointment over the outcome of the war is bound to increase. Ron Paul is the authentic voice of the libertarian movement, and Barnett's whining is not about to drown it out.

[Rincevent]

Pour en savoir davantage sur les néolibertariens, Wikipedia a un article assez bien fait sur le sujet. Et ça explique mon avatar.

[pankkake]

Pour en savoir davantage sur les néolibertariens, Wikipedia a un article assez bien fait sur le sujet. Et ça explique mon avatar.

Ouais bah c'est nul

[Ronnie Hayek]

Pour en savoir davantage sur les néolibertariens, Wikipedia a un article assez bien fait sur le sujet. Et ça explique mon avatar.

Un beau mouton à cinq pattes.

[A.B.]

L'article oublie de mentionner une chose: la guerre est payée par le contribuable. Qu'on commence à avoir des guerres financées volontairement, ensuite on pourra pinailler pour savoir si le régime de Saddam était mauvais.

[Ronnie Hayek]

L'article oublie de mentionner une chose: la guerre est payée par le contribuable. Qu'on commence à avoir des guerres financées volontairement, ensuite on pourra pinailler pour savoir si le régime de Saddam était mauvais.

Le problème est encore pire que ça: les "liberventionnistes" défendent des guerres d'agression et balaient d'un méprisant revers de main les règles de droit international - précieux héritage libéral s'il en est.

[A.B.]

Le problème est encore pire que ça: les "liberventionnistes" défendent des guerres d'agression et balaient d'un méprisant revers de main les règles de droit international

Le droit international n'est qu'un droit positif. Ce mauvais argument est celui qui est attaqué avec justesse par les interventionnistes. Utiliser cet argument c'est leur fournir une occasion d'avoir l'air d'avoir raison.

Il est beaucoup plus difficile d'attaquer l'argument

- des victimes innocentes

- du cout porté par le contribuable… trivial mais ca a le don d'ébranler le liberventionniste de base qui s'attend à ce qu'on lui parle de souveraineté nationale.

[José]

Le droit international n'est qu'un droit positif.

Très grossière erreur : le droit des gens est resté plus longtemps inspiré du Droit naturel que les droits nationaux (relis ton Vitoria). De même que le droit international privé se base toujours, pour une grande partie, sur l'équité et l'arbitrage.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Le droit international n'est qu'un droit positif. Ce mauvais argument est celui qui est attaqué avec justesse par les interventionnistes. Utiliser cet argument c'est leur fournir une occasion d'avoir l'air d'avoir raison.

Il est beaucoup plus difficile d'attaquer l'argument

- des victimes innocentes

- du cout porté par le contribuable… trivial mais ca a le don d'ébranler le liberventionniste de base qui s'attend à ce qu'on lui parle de souveraineté nationale.

Tu n'espères quand même pas avoir dit quelque chose en éructant sur le mode "le droit des gens = inepte droit positif" ? Ce que critiquent les interventionnistes, ce sont les limites à leur furie belliciste - limites que contient, tiens donc, le droit hérité de Grotius, Vitoria et consorts. Les faux libertariens que soutiennent tous les Rincevent du monde exècrent les règles de droit, car ils ont bien conscience qu'elles sont une entrave à leur volonté de puissance.

D'ailleurs, si tu veux parler de victimes innocentes dans un conflit, tu es bien obligé de recourir à des arguments issus du droit international.

[Hakill]

Le préfixe "néo-" est de plus en plus un weasel prefix pour reprendre l'image de F. Hayek: un néoconservateur n'est pas un conservateur et un néolibertarien n'est pas plus libertarien…

Les bases à l'étranger et les guerres à mener contre tous les petits dictateurs de la planète (mais avec du pétrole) coûtent une fortune au contribuable: 440 milliards de dollars par an aux USA aujourd'hui et je n'ose imaginer combien ça coûterait si étaient aussi attaqués l'Iran, l'Arabie Saoudite, le Vénézuéla, le Soudan, la Syrie, le Pakistan, …

[A.B.]

D'ailleurs, si tu veux parler de victimes innocentes dans un conflit, tu es bien obligé de recourir à des arguments issus du droit international.

Non, de Droit Naturel. L'expression même "droit international" est vide de sens car le concept de nation n'a rien à voir avec le Droit.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Non, de Droit Naturel. L'expression même "droit international" est vide de sens car le concept de nation n'a rien à voir avec le Droit.

Comment se fait-il que les premiers grands théoriciens du droit des gens fussent généralement des partisans du droit naturel, à ton avis ?

[A.B.]

Très grossière erreur : le droit des gens est resté plus longtemps inspiré du Droit naturel que les droits nationaux (relis ton Vitoria). De même que le droit international privé se base toujours, pour une grande partie, sur l'équité et l'arbitrage.

Il ne fait aucun doute que le droit international est plus proche du droit naturel que les droits nationaux ne le sont, mais je ne vois pas en quoi le fait qu'une intervention militaire constitue une infraction au droit internationale constitue, en soit, une raison de les condamner.

Comment se fait-il que les premiers grands théoriciens du droit des gens fussent généralement des partisans du droit naturel, à ton avis ?

Ils ont trouvé la lumière en se penchant naturellement sur la question. Ce que je conteste c'est faire du droit international un argument d'autorité en la matière. Si le droit international s'oppose à la guerre il a raison rien de plus.

[Invité Arn0]

Il ne fait aucun doute que le droit international est plus proche du droit naturel que les droits nationaux ne le sont, mais je ne vois pas en quoi le fait qu'une intervention militaire constitue une infraction au droit internationale constitue, en soit, une raison de les condamner.

Même si c'est un détail je signale que les états se sont engagés par traité (contrat) à respecter les principes du droit international.

[A.B.]

Même si c'est un détail je signale que les états se sont engagés par traité (contrat) à respecter les principes du droit international.

C'est vrai, qui est l'État ? Les contrats concernent des individus.

[José]

L'expression même "droit international" est vide de sens car le concept de nation n'a rien à voir avec le Droit.

Évidemment, cela ne t'interpelle pas (quelque part au niveau du vécu) que le droit international s'appelait avant droit des gens (ius gentium).

[Invité Arn0]

C'est vrai, qui est l'État ? Les contrats concernent des individus.

L'état est une personne morale. Les traités valablement contractés au nom de cette personne morale engagent ceux qui acceptent d'y adhérer et plus encore ceux qui acceptent de la diriger.

[José]

L'état est une personne morale.

Contradictio in terminis.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Ils ont trouvé la lumière en se penchant naturellement sur la question. Ce que je conteste c'est faire du droit international un argument d'autorité en la matière. Si le droit international s'oppose à la guerre il a raison rien de plus.

C'est "s'opposer à la guerre" tout court qui ne veut rien dire. Il s'agit plutôt de définir les critères d'une guerre juste. En outre, si aucune règle juridique ne dit comment doivent se comporter les Etats les uns par rapport aux autres, c'est le règne de l'anomie la plus complète et la prime offerte au plus rusé et au plus fort.

[Nicolas Luxivor]

Contradictio in terminis.

Référence? Sources?

J'ai la mienne mais je peux pas la citer.

…Il s'agit plutôt de définir les critères d'une guerre juste. …

La légitime défense est l'argument toujours utilisé. Le problème est que les critères justifiant la "légitime défense" sont subjectifs.

Le droit international a ses limites…

[José]

Référence? Sources?

[…] le seul gouvernement visible, tangible que nous ayons est composé de ceux qui se présentent comme les agents ou les représentants de cette bande secrète de brigands et d’assassins qui, pour camoufler ou farder leurs vols et leurs assassinats, se sont décerné le titre de “peuple des États-Unis”; et qui, sous prétexte de constituer “le peuple des États-Unis”, réclament le droit de soumettre à leur empire toute propriété ou toute personne qui se trouvent aux États-Unis, et de les contrôler et d’en disposer selon leur bon plaisir.

[…]

Tous les grands gouvernements du monde — ceux d’aujourd’hui et ceux d’hier — […] n’ont été que des bandes de voleurs, associés afin de piller, de conquérir et de réduire leurs frères humains en esclavage. Et leurs lois, comme ils les appellent, ne représentent que les ententes qu’ils ont jugé nécessaire de conclure afin de maintenir leur organisation et d’agir de concert pour dépouiller les autres et les réduire en esclavage, et pour assurer à chacun sa part convenu du butin.

Toutes ces lois n’imposent pas plus d’obligations que n’en créent les ententes que les brigands, les bandits et les pirates jugent utile de conclure entre eux.

[…]

Les “nations”, comme on les appelle, avec lesquelles nos soi-disant ambassadeurs, ministres, présidents et sénateurs prétendent conclure des traités, sont des mythes tout autant que la nôtre. En vertu des principes généraux du droit et de la raison, de telles “nations” n’existent pas.

[POE]

Ah, ben si Spooner le dit…

[José]

Ah, ben si Spooner le dit…

Et Virginia Foxx : http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?showtopic=32281

[POE]

Et Virginia Foxx : http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?showtopic=32281

Et Lucilio ?

[José]

Et Lucilio ?

Et Albert Jay Nock :

Le caractère criminel de l'État n'a rien de neuf et n'est pas surprenant. Il est apparu quand, pour la première fois, des prédateurs se sont réunis et ont formé un État ; et cela continuera aussi longtemps que l'État existe. Car l'État est fondamentalement une institution antisociale et criminelle.

http://www.mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf

Et Randolph Silliman Bourne :

La guerre est la santé de l'État.

[POE]

Résumons cette glorieuse pensée : L'Etat c'est le mal.

[Nicolas Luxivor]

Spooner le dit…

Et Virginia Foxx : http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?showtopic=32281

Spooner fait une déclaration…

Bof, pas très convaincant. J'aurai espéré une vrai argumentation. Compte tenu du fait que tu as l'air affirmatif sur le sujet…

D'autre part, qu'une personne vole et s'en justifie devant un tribunal est normal. C'est au tribunal de décider. Si il y a vraiment vol, je doute que la dite personne s'en tire sans rien..

[h16]

Spooner fait une déclaration…

Bof, pas très convaincant. J'aurai espéré une vrai argumentation. Compte tenu du fait que tu as l'air affirmatif sur le sujet…

Lis Spooner. C'est très bien argumenté.

D'autre part, qu'une personne vole et s'en justifie devant un tribunal est normal. C'est au tribunal de décider. Si il y a vraiment vol, je doute que la dite personne s'en tire sans rien..

Et pourtant, le ministère public ne s'est jamais tapé sur les doigts pour l'avoir fait.